Manava Dharmashastra 5.110.1

5.110.1

taijasānītyucyante yānyagnisaṃyogād dravībhavanti, rajatasuvarṇatāmrāyasatrapusīsādīni | maṇayaḥ sphaṭikakalpāḥ | aśmā pāṣāṇaḥ | tadvikāraḥ pātramaśmamayam | sarvasyeti pādapūraṇārtham | parvatagrāvṇo nadīsthasya cetyālaṃbanam | bhasmaneti ekakārthatvānmṛdbhasmano vikalpyete | āpaḥ samuccīyante | kiṃpunaratra kāryam | lepagandhāpamārjanam | uktaṃ (ślo0 126) "lepagandhāpakarṣaṇe śaucamamedhyasya" ihāpi "yāvannāpaityamedhyāktāditi" | tatra rūpataḥ pāruṣyaṃ samānaṃ mṛdbhasmanoḥ, snehanimittakāryabhede śuddhiḥ | aśuceḥ śucitvāpādanaṃ pratyavāyāpanayena saṃvyavahārayogyatā | yadyevamaśuddhirvācyā-idamanena saṃpṛktamaśucīti | 'nanu laukikāḥ padārthāstatra lokādeva jñāsyante' | naivam | sāmānyamātraṃ lokājjñāyate | yajjugupsitaṃ mūtrapurīṣaśoṇitasaṃsargeṇa tādṛśaṃ loke'śucītyāha | yadayogyaṃ sparśanādikriyāsu tadaśuci | kathaṃ ca tasyāyogyatetyetacchāstrādeva vivektavyam | kiṃca paradravyādau yo na skhalati sa śucirucyate | ato nānayā padārthaprasiddhayeha kiṃcitsiddhyati | apahatamaśucīti siddhe'pi idamanenāpahanyata iti nāntareṇa śāstraviśeṣaṃ siddhyati | "kathaṃ punaḥ śāstrātpadārthaviśeṣāvasāyaḥ, yāvatā kartavyatāparatvena śāstraṃ pramāṇam, na padārthaprasiddhau, pāṇinivat | vedamūlatvābhyupagamānmanvādismṛtīnām |" ucyate | anena dravyeṇa yad duṣṭaṃ tena na vyavahartavyamityastyeva vidhyanumānam| yatsaṃsargeṇa vyavahārapratiṣedhaḥ sa upaghātaheturityavagamo na virudhyate |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The name ‘Igneous substances’ is applied to all those substances that melt at the contact of fire; e.g. silver, gold, copper, iron, lead, zinc and so forth.

‘Gems’—things of the nature of the rock-crystal. ‘Ashma’ is stone; and what is made of it is called ‘ashmamaya’.

‘Sarvasya,’ ‘of everything’—This has been added for filling up the metre; the justification for it being found in there being two kinds of stone—that quarried from mountains and that obtained from river-beds.

‘By ash’;—since both ash and clay serve the same purpose, they are to be regarded as optional alternatives; while ‘water’ is meant to be used along with each of these two.

“What is the use of these?”

The removing of stains and smells. It has been declared that—‘the purification of the unclean thing consists in the removal of its stains and smell’;—and again‘so long as from the object besmeared with an unclean substance, the odour and stain do not pass off &c. &c.’

Both ash and clay are, by their very nature, non-greasy; hence purification is brought about by these in the case of oily effects.

The ‘purification’ of the ‘impure’ thing consists in making it fit for use by removing its defects.

“If this is so, then it should be necessary to describe in detail the impurity attaching to things—in some such form as ‘such and such a substance becomes impure when in contact with such and such a substance’.—‘But these are worldly things; and all this would be known from ordinary usage.’—Not so; because from ordinary usage, the thing is known only in a vague general form. Further in ordinary usage what is called ‘impure’ is only what has become disgusting by being contaminated by urine, ordure and blood; while what is meant by ‘impure’ in the present context is that which is unfit for touching &c.; and it is only from the scriptures that it could be learnt whence this unfitness arises. Then again, a man is called pure when he does not fall into a mistake in regard to what belongs to others. From all this it is clear that no useful purpose can be served from what is thus known, from ordinary usage, regarding the signification of the term in question. Though it is generally known that what has been contaminated is impure, yet it cannot be known by what particular thing a certain thing becomes contaminated.—‘But how can the exact signification of a term be ascertained from scriptures, when, ‘as a matter of fact, what the scriptures provide is the knowledge of what should be done, and not the meaning of a certain word, which latter is what is done by the work of Pāṇini; that this is so follows from the fact that the Smṛtis of Manu and others are based upon the Veda (which deals only with the Duties of Man)’.—Our answer to this is as follows:—In the case in question, we do infer an injunction in the form—‘one should not make use of a substance that has become contaminated by such and such a substance’; and there would be nothing incongruous in the notion that the substance by whose contact the thing becomes unfit for use is the cause of contamination. Similarly as regards purification also, we can recognise its basis in some such injunction as—‘when a thing has become contaminated, it may be used after it has gone through the prescribed process of washing &c.’; and yet such an injunction would not mean that ‘purification should be done’. For if it did this, then, he who would not do it would incur sin. What happens is that in the case of ordinary secular acts, it being possible for the man in need to make use of any kind of vessels, pure or otherwise,—the Scripture lays down the restriction that ‘if need arises, one should make use of such vessels, and not of others If it is to be treated as a restriction, then it would be incumbent upon only one who seeks prosperity; and every other man would be free to do as he chose; just as in connection with the question of the correct forms of words, though the correct and incorrect forms are both equally expressive, yet there is the restriction which indicates that the use of the correct form brings merit, while that of the incorrect form is sinful [and this means that only people seeking merit need use the correct form].’—This would be true only if there were no text prohibiting the use of unclean vessels. But when there is such a prohibition, how could anyone make use of the vessel that has not been purified? As for the rules regarding purification, these only represent exceptions (to the prohibition of unclean vessels, the meaning being, that if the unclean vessel has been purified, it may be used). How then could there be any prosperity arising from what is a mere exception? Since all that it means is that if one acts according to the exception, he does not incur the sin of transgressing the prohibition.