Abdhinauyanamimamsa 4.1.4

Now begins the inquiry into ancestral offerings and other rites.

If it is objected: In travelling to another country or travelling to a foreign land by boat travel on the ocean, since it is stated, "And regions where the duties of the life-stages have perished should be avoided with effort" (in the Vāyu Purāṇa, in the section on regions to be avoided for ancestral offerings, in the Nirṇayasindhu), by the statement that regions destitute of the duties of class and stage of life are to be abandoned, how is entering into what is there to be abandoned justified? We reply: No. Because this statement occurs in the section on ancestral offerings, the understood meaning is that an ancestral offering is not to be performed there. As for the statement: "Where the black antelope roams by nature, that is to be known as the sacrificial region; beyond that is the barbarian territory. Twice-born men should settle in these regions with effort, but a Shudra, emaciated by want of a livelihood, may dwell wherever he pleases" (by Manu, chapter 2, verses [23–]24)—because of the statement "emaciated by want of a livelihood," the meaning is: if one goes there with the intention, "Another livelihood is not obtained here; therefore it is not possible to remain here; if one goes there, then a livelihood is obtained, and consequently we shall dwell right there, and not return to the region lacking a livelihood," [that is prohibited] because of the statement, "they should settle with effort." Because "settling with effort" means permanent dwelling, even if one resorts [to another land] for the sake of searching for the means thereof until gaining a suitable livelihood, once one has obtained that means there, one must indeed return from there and not settle permanently; and because the meaning obtained is that there is no fault in residing elsewhere [temporarily]. For this very reason the statement, "Or dwelling wherever one may, one should not abandon one's own proper conduct," is consistent. For this very reason they dwell even in regions within Bharatakhaṇḍa that are prohibited by the scriptures. Otherwise, because of the statement: "One should not dwell in a kingdom ruled by a Shudra, nor in one surrounded by unrighteous people, nor in one overrun by hosts of heretics, nor in one beset by outcaste men" (by Manu, chapter 4, [verse] 61), since residence in a region ruled by a Shudra and the like is prohibited, the residence there nowadays of many learned Vedic scholars would be improper. Furthermore, because of the statement, "In a barbarian territory, likewise at night, at twilight, in a place devoid of Brahmins, and in open air, a wise man should never perform an ancestral offering" (in the Divodāsīya), the ancestral offering is prohibited in a barbarian territory, but not travel itself; hence there is no fault. If it is objected: Since the performance of the ancestral offering in a barbarian territory is prohibited by the cited text, and because an omission of the ancestral offering entails a sin, as stated: "O king of birds, that eater who does not perform the ancestral offering constantly for mother and father year after year on the day of death, goes to the dreadful hell called Tāmisra" (by Manu in the Bhaviṣya [Purāṇa], in the Madanaratna); and because it is stated, "Or dwelling wherever one may, one should not abandon one's own proper conduct," and "One should not make an elaboration in the ancestral offering," the only proper meaning is that one should not perform the ancestral offering elaborately according to rule in a barbarian territory and the like, which is constrained by various impediments such as the absence of Brahmins. Furthermore, although an ancestral offering is prohibited in specified regions, as stated: "One should avoid the whole country of Triśaṅku, twelve yojanas [in extent], north of the Mahānadī and south of the Kīkaṭas; the country named Traiśaṅkava is avoided in the rite of an ancestral offering" (in the Skanda Purāṇa, in the Pṛthvīcandrodaya, in the Nirṇayasindhu); likewise, "Among the Kirātas, the Kaliṅgas, the Koṅkaṇas, and the Khasas, on the northern bank of the Indus, and south of the Narmadā, and east of the Karatoyā, it is said that an ancestral offering is not to be given" (in the Brāhma [Purāṇa], in the Nirṇayasindhu); and "Arid, worm-infested, damp, filthy, foul-smelling ground, and a place of unpleasant noise, one should avoid in the rite of an ancestral offering" (by Yama in the Nirṇayasindhu)—nevertheless, because of the statement, "This applies to optional wish-fulfilling offerings; otherwise it would entail the lapse of all ancestral offerings for those living there" (in the Nirṇayasindhu, right there), since the obligatory offering cannot be abandoned, the construal of the meaning that an optional ancestral offering is not to be performed is alone proper.

Furthermore, in such cases of impossibility due to illness, impurity, appointment to royal service, residence in prison, or being a minor, there is no such fault because of the performance of the ancestral offering in one's own country by means of a proxy.

And moreover: "In the absence of materials and in the absence of twice-born men, one should cook mere grain; and the discerning man should make an oblation with the ancestral hymn" (in the Bṛhannāradīya, in the Pṛthvīcandrodaya, in the Nirṇayasindhu); likewise, "In the absence of materials and Brahmins, a mere rice-ball is to be offered; when the day of the ancestral offering arrives, one may even fast" (by Devala, right there); likewise, "An incapacitated man may give something, a water-pot and the like, to a twice-born man, or give grasses to a cow, or cast rice-balls, or satisfy the ancestors with sesame and darbha grass,

preceded by ritual ablution" (by Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha, right there); likewise, "Or when the time of the ancestral offering has arrived, one may burn dry brush with fire, or fast on that day, or recite the ancestral compendium [Śrāddhasaṃhitā]" (in the Bhaviṣya [Purāṇa], in Hemādri); here, [the Śrāddhasaṃhitā is] the ritual declaration of the ancestral offering with mantras, according to the Nirṇayasindhu; "And he who is entirely unable to perform the parvan ancestral offering here, for him it is prescribed in due time even by the rule of ritual declaration; the abandonment into a vessel of food fit to be eaten is called a ritual declaration" (the ritual declaration stated by Saṃvarta, in Hemādri, right there). Thus, although the ancestral offering directly according to rule is prohibited because it cannot be performed by almost anyone due to being devoid of Brahmins and the like, there is no impediment because the alternative means that serve as its substitutes are easily practicable. This is the general direction.

If it be objected: At the time of traveling by boat on the ocean, if one hears of the death of one's mother or father, the post-mortem rites for them cannot be performed there as on land. And consequently, having obtained a son through some specific merit accumulated in this birth or another birth, having endured many hardships for his sake, [seeking] his contentment through diverse toils, expending much wealth on his purificatory rites, share of inheritance, gifts, and so forth, lifelong, for the purpose of receiving repayment of benefits from him such as the final rites—if he does not repay the benefit to the parents who benefited [him], then gratitude is broken, and sonship, whose definition is stated as 'A son is the savior from the hell named Put', is violated; for this very reason, in the absence of an aurasa son, they adopt a dattaka son—

[We reply:] No. Because, in the case of rites that cannot be performed at a later time, rites remaining after the cremation and the gathering of bones can indeed be performed on an area of land imagined upon the boat in the manner stated in the Twilight Section, provided there is availability of assistants and materials. If there is a deficiency of assistants and the like, then just as there would be a course of action when there is a deficiency thereof on land, so it would be here.

By this, [the view] that post-mortem rites other than cremation and bone-gathering are impossible there because it is said: 'Not wearing a single garment, nor on an island, nor ever in mid-air, nor impure, should one ever perform a rite taught in Śruti or Smṛti', is refuted. And because there is no fault in having those ancestral offerings and so forth accomplished by any proxy of one's own remaining in one's own country, just as in the case of afflictions by disease and the like, even at the time of traveling by boat.

And because there is no fault if, having disembarked from the boat and performed the prescribed expiation, one carries out that rite.

If it be objected that the fault is caused by being an island, and this too is indeed an island—[we say no,] because the meaning of that statement is that one should not perform it on an island situated in the midst of a river or the like where the flow of water is extremely small, since, if a surge of current should suddenly descend there, there would be abundant faults, such as the interruption of the ancestral offering that requires long time and great exertion, the consequence of suicide, and so on.

Nor should it be said that at the time of crossing the ocean by boat, because one is oneself impure and, like a fallen man without expiation, lacks eligibility for performing rites other than obligatory daily rites, it is impossible; because there is no fault in performing it having executed expiation right there and achieved purification.

Nor should it be said that because the expiation stated by Bodhāyana—'Eating moderately at the fourth meal-time, entering the waters at every libation time, spending time by standing and sitting, in three years they destroy that sin'—lasts for three years, purification is obtained only after performing that for so long, and then the duty of post-mortem rites arises; because expiation is only for one who has disembarked from the boat after the travel, whereas expiation is not prescribed for one remaining right there, so expiation does not apply while on the boat.

And because it can be stated that the rule of expiation is strictly tied to the omission of the major Śrauta and Smārta rites to be performed, and therefore applies only to avoiding the adverse consequence caused by that, not elsewhere; and because it is unreasonable to admit that it applies to avoiding the adverse consequence of ritual omission [in such a rigid way]. Another manner has indeed already been stated earlier. And because that expiation concerns a traveler who has practiced boat travel for a long time.

And because, from the statement by Paiṭhīnasi in the Nirṇayasindhu—'In marriage, a siege, a sacrifice, travel, and ritual at a holy bathing place, there is no impurity of birth/death; similarly one may cause a rite, sacrifice, and the like to be performed'—there is no fault, since that concerns cases other than mother and father, or because of the acceptance that observance of impurity and the duty of the sacrifice to ancestors occur only after disembarking from the boat.

And another applicable method was stated in the first section; it should not be forgotten.

[Objection:] But if someone dies while travelling there, cremation and the like could not occur, because it is impossible to perform it there. And one should not say: 'There is no fault if, having placed the corpse in a vat of oil just like the preservation of the corpse of Daśaratha and others until reaching land in a foreign country, one disembarks after reaching land and performs the cremation'—because even if a capable person could do so, others cannot. Nor can one say: 'It is impossible for his kin and others to carry out daily dealings like bathing and eating there while keeping a corpse'—for even though such conduct is not seen among the three classes in the Kali age, in the Tretā age at the time of Rāma's rule, the preservation of many corpses in one place and their subsequent sacrament, both of others and previously of Daśaratha, is an established traditional practice clearly stated in the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa and the Ānanda Rāmāyaṇa; but for fear of prolixity it is not written down here. Even nowadays, when someone dies at night, people wait until the arrival of sons and others; and sometimes, when someone dies or is killed by someone in an English hospital, after two or three days have passed, the sacrament is performed after performing the expiation for an uncremated corpse left overnight; hence such [a practice] does exist in some cases. If you say, 'There, such conduct is due to impossibility,' it is equal in the present case as well. If you say that the shortness or length of time depends on the force of impossibility, no: for there is no fault in having him take renunciation on his deathbed and, after his death, casting [the corpse] into the holy water of the sea. Moreover, Mādhava—citing the Kūrma Purāṇa, 'A Brahmin, a Kshatriya, or indeed a Vaishya may renounce from his house'—states in the Nirṇayasindhu, in the section on renunciation in the third chapter, that all members of the three classes are eligible for renunciation: 'All three classes have the right.' Nor can one say: 'What would be the recourse if that renunciant somehow survives? For looking upon him there on the boat is forbidden by the text: "Seeing an ascetic mounted on a vehicle, one should bathe with one's clothes on."' For he did not himself board the boat after taking renunciation, and [the prohibition] pertains to an ascetic who voluntarily mounts a boat. And one should not say: 'Because he is impure, he has no right to take renunciation, nor do others have the right to grant it to him,' for it is said: 'When the destruction of the body is at hand, those who speak of restrictive rules—the sin thereof falls upon them through the obstruction of a great duty'; and likewise: 'Favor is prescribed for the weak, and likewise for children and the aged; otherwise, fault would arise; therefore indulgence is taught [by tradition]'; and Parāśara in the Śrāddhakāṇḍa of the Smṛtimuktāphala says: 'Brahmins are a moving holy water; for the virtuous are embodiments of holy places. By the mere water of their words, impure people become pure'; and Nārada in the same work states: 'Even a mustard-seed amount of Ganges water mixed with a basil leaf purifies twenty-one generations.' Thus, even in the absence of rules and the like, through the word of a Brahmin, Ganges water, and remembrance of Hari and Śiva, purity is possible for one who is dying. And because there is no other recourse than abandoning the corpse of the deceased in the holy water of the ocean, there is no fault in casting it there, disembarking elsewhere, and performing the prescribed rites by resorting to the palāśa-effigy procedure. By this, the objection—'Even if renunciation is available for men, what is the recourse for female corpses? For there is no injunction to cast them into that holy water'—is refuted; because, having abandoned the corpse in the water, the requisite rites are accomplished right then through the palāśa-effigy procedure by a proxy present in Bharata or another country, just as in the case of one's own afflicted state. Enough of further elaboration.