History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1.278

v5.c71.s1.278

¹⁸⁶ स्त्रीशूद्रयोरपि ब्राह्मणद्वारा लौकिकाग्नौ होमो भवत्येव । अत एव धर्मविवृत्तौ 'उपवासो व्रतं होमस्तीर्थस्नानं जपादिकम्। विप्रैः सम्पादितं यस्य सम्पूर्णं तस्य तत्फलम्॥ इति।' मद. पा p. 749. This is पराशर VI. 63-64 (the printed edition in B. S. Series reads व्रतं चैव स्नानं तीर्थं जपस्तप ). It is rather inexplicable how while Nīlakaṇṭha in his Vyavahāramayūkha holds, relying on Parāśara, that the *dattahoma* may be performed by a śūdra or a woman through a brāhmaṇa, the Prāyaścittamayūkha of the same author propounds a different view in the words 'एतेन यन्महार्णवमदनरत्नयो. स्त्रीशूद्रादेर्विप्रद्वारा समन्त्रकौ जपहोमौ भवत इति तत्परास्तम्' (p 13) Did the author change his views or is the text of one of the two Mayūkhas tampered with by his successors? The प्रा प्रकाश (folio 30 b) explains Parāśara VI. 63-64 in a different way It says that the verse does not lay down generally that a woman or any one else can in every case have a *homa* performed for her through a brāhmaṇa, but that where in a rite *japa* and *homa* are obligatory and the person concerned is unable to perform japa and homa in person there alone he can appoint a brāhmaṇa as *pratinidhi* अस्य मातेषु जपहोमादिषु अशक्तौ विप्ररूपप्रतिनिधिनियमनार्थत्वात् । प्रायश्चित्ताङ्गजपहोमयोस्तु निषेधादेवाप्रवृत्तेस्तत्र तस्यामवृत्तिः। ..एतेन यन्महार्णवमदनरत्नयो. स्त्रीशूद्रादेर्विप्रद्वारा समन्त्रकौ जपहोमौ भवत इति तत्परास्तम् ! प्रा प्रकाश folio 30 b