Manava Dharmashastra 5.125

5.125

pavitrāṇi śuddhāni |
devagrahaṇaṃ stutiḥ |
brāhmaṇagrahaṇamapi samācārātsarvavarṇārtham |
adṛṣṭaṃ yajnārañjapradeśasthaṃ dravyamadṛṣṭaśvakākādisaṃsargam | na ca sadbhāvamātreṇa tadupaghātāśaṅkā niṣpramāṇikā kartavyā | evaṃ mahānasādā sūdādibhirakṛtaśaucairyavaharadbhiḥ pākyaṃ dravyamadṛṣṭaṃ paribhoktuṃ na duṣyati |
na punariyamāśaṅkā kartavyā-uttarakāle tatprāgavijñātopaghāte na doṣaḥ | tathāhi "amatsyaitāni ca" ityādi virudhyeta | evaṃ tāvadyatra doṣasambandho na kenacitpramāṇenāvagamyeta tacchuddham | yatra punarasatyapi niścāyake pramāṇe kutarkeṇa sambhāvyate tatrādbhirnirṇiktanyam | yathā samānadeśasthālīpiṭharādi śvakākādibhirupahanyamānaṃ dṛṣṭam, anyadadṛṣṭamapyadbhirnirṇiktavyam |
tathaivaṃvidhameva vācā praśaṃsanīyam | śuddhametadastviti śiṣṭā vācayitavyāḥ | brāhmaṇavacanācchuddhirbhavatītyāhuḥ | praśasyata iti laḍayaṃ vidhau draṣṭavyaḥ |
ye tvāhuḥ “dṛṣṭopaghātaṃ yattasya vyavahartrā sākṣācchuddhau kriyamāṇāyāmadṛṣṭāyāṃ śiṣṭāśvedāhuḥ ‘kṛtamasya śaucamiti’, tatra pratyeyavyamiti vākpraśastasyārthaḥ” tadayuktam | āptavacanasya sarvatraivāprāmāṇyasyānaṅgīkṛtatvātpaunaruktyaprasaṅgaḥ |
anye tvagnirṇiktamiti dṛṣṭāntatayā vyākhyānayanti | ‘adṛṣṭavākpraśaste’ vidhīyete | ‘yathā'gnirṇiktaṃ śuddhamevamadṛṣṭaṃ vākpraśastaṃ vidhīyate’ |
“nanu ca yadyadṛṣṭadoṣaṃ pratyakṣānumānāgamaiḥ śuddhaṃ tatkathaṃ ‘saṃvatsarasyaikamapīti” | bhakṣyaviṣayaṃ tat | spṛśyaviṣayā śuddhiriyam | gurulāghutayā vā, āpadanāpadbhedena vā vyavasthā |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Pavitram’—pure.

The mention of the gods is by way of commendation.

The term ‘Brāhmaṇa’ includes, according to usage, all castes.

‘What is not seen’;—a thing that, though lying in an unprotected place, is yet not actually seen to have been contaminated by the touch of the dog, the crow or such other things. The mere presence of such animals should not be made the ground for suspecting actual defilement, until it is actually perceived. Similarly there can be no harm in a man partaking of food prepared in the kitchen by cooks and others who may have done the cooking without having themselves undergone a cleansing process [if anything unclean is not actually perceived].

In this connection, no one should entertain the idea that—‘there would be nothing wrong in the partaking of food if the defilement were entirely unknown.’ As this would be contrary to what has been declared (in 5.20) regarding the sinfulness of eating certain things unintentionally.

Thus the conclusion is that a thing is to be regarded as pure in connection with which no contamination is known by any of the recognised means of knowledge. But when, even in the absence of definite proof, there be even the slightest and most far-fetched suspicion regarding contamination, the thing concerned should be washed with water. E.g. when from among a large number of dishes and cups lying in the same place, if even one has been seen to be contaminated by the touch of the dog or some such thing, all the rest of them also should be washed with water.

To this same category (of ‘what is not seen’) belongs also ‘what is commended by word.’ That is cultured men should be made to pronounce the thing to be pure. They say that things become pure by the Brāhmaṇa’s word. The present tense in ‘praśasyate’, ‘is commended’, has the force of the Injunctive.

Some people explain the‘commendation’ here spoken of as follows “When the person going to make use of a certain thing has seen it being defiled, even if he does not himself see it being purified, he should believe it to have been purified if cultured people assure him that it has undergone purification.”

This however is not right. Since the assertion of a trustworthy person has nowhere been spoken of as being unreliable, to assert it here would be a needless repetition.

Others have explained the term ‘what is washed with water’ as meant to be an example,—and the ‘unseen’ and the ‘commended by word’ as the two whose purity is here enjoined; the sense being—‘Just as what is washed with water is pure, so also should be regarded what is not seen and what is commended by word’

“If everything is pure, in which no contamination is cognised by either Perception or Inference or Verbal Authority,—then why should the Cāndrāyaṇa have been prescribed (under 5.21) as to be performed for the expiation of the sin of having partaken of defiled food, without knowledge ?”

What has been said under 5.21 is in connection with what is At for being eaten; while the present text deals with purification in general. Or, a distinction may be drawn between the two declarations, either on the ground of one referring to cases of more serious defilement than the other, or on the ground of one referring to times of distress and the other to normal times.—(125)