Verse 2.43

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

मुञ्जालाभे तु कर्तव्याः कुशाश्मन्तकबल्वजैः ।
त्रिवृता ग्रन्थिनैकेन त्रिभिः पञ्चभिरेव वा ॥ ४३ ॥

muñjālābhe tu kartavyāḥ kuśāśmantakabalvajaiḥ |
trivṛtā granthinaikena tribhiḥ pañcabhireva vā || 43 ||

In the event of Muñja (and thb rest) being not available, they should be made of Kuśa, Ashmantaka and Balvaja,—triplicated with one, three or four knots.—(43)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Writers declare that the phrase ‘and the rest’ is understood, the sense being ‘in the event of Muñja and the rest being not available.’ And the reason for this is that it is only thus that the plural number ‘should be made,’ becomes more appropriate; specially as the diversity of the girdle has been clearly prescribed in accordance with the diversity of castes. If the girdle spoken of in the present verse were meant for that of any one caste only, then the plural number could be justified only by taking it as referring to the girdle worn by the endless individual members of that one caste; and further, it would be necessary in this case to alter the singular number in ‘viprasya’ (of the preceding verse) into the plural number (to bring it into conformity with the present verse); and lastly, in this case all the three alternatives herein mentioned would have to be taken as pertaining to the one girdle (of the Brāhmaṇa only). And no such multiplicity of option should be allowed so long as there is any other way of taking the text.

Thus then the sense of the present verse is as follows—(a) if Muñja is not available, the girdle should be made of Kuśa; if the bow-string is not available, it should be made of Ashmantaka; and (c) if the hempen fibre is not available it should be made of Balvaja.

The terms ‘kuśa,’ etc., denote grasses and herbs.

This verse is meant to restrict the choice of substitutes; so that in the absence of kuśa, etc., one would not be justified in using any other similar substances.

Triplicated by one knot. The various numbers (of knots) are not meant to be restricted to the three castes respectively; they are intended to be optional alternatives for every one of them. This difference in the number of knots in the girdle made of kuśa, etc., as well as the other details laid down in connection with it are to be regarded as regular injunctions, even though the customs laid down in other Smṛtis are not necessarily binding.—(43)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 447),—and also in Madanapārijāta (p. 20), which latter agrees with Medhātithi in taking the Kuśa-Aśmāntaka-Balvaja as pertaining to the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya respectively.

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 433) explains that the term ‘Muñja’ in the present verse stands for all its variants mentioned in the preceding verse, and proceeds to quote the view that what is meant is that—(a) for the Brāhmaṇa in the absence of Muñja, Kuśa should be used,—(b) for the Kśatriya in the absence of Murvā, Aśmāntaka, and (c) for the Vaiśya in the absence of Śaṇa, Balvaja; but dissents from it, stating it as its own opinion, that all the three substitutes mentioned are meant for each of the primary substances enjoined before. It cites another view, according to which, since the present verse mentions the Muñja only, the meaning must be that the three substitutes are meant for the Brāhmaṇa only; so that for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, if the substance primarily prescribed under the preceding verse be not available, they should make use of some other suitable material resembling the primary. But this view also is not approved as being in conflict with the text of Yama, which says that—“in the absence, of these i.e. the three, Muñja, Murvā and Śaṇa, the girdle should be made of Kuśa, Aśmāntaka and Balvaja.”

The second half of the verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra) on page 432, where it adds that the options mentioned do not depend entirely on the wish of the wearer,—the number of knots being, in fact, determined by the number of Pravaras of the Gotra to which the boy belongs.

Nirṇayasindhu (p. 189) also quotes this verse;—and Aparārka (p. 58), which explains that the knots are to be made in accordance with one’s ‘Gotra-ṛṣis’;—also Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 37), which quotes Kullūka’s explanation;—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 193) as setting forth substitutes for the girdle-zone; it adds the following notes:—The term ‘ādi’ is understood here, the construction being ‘Muñjādyabhāve’, ‘in the absence of Muñja and other substances’; the number of knots is to be the same as that of the wearer’s Pravara;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 43b);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 80), which adds the note that ‘trivṛt’ means ‘threefold’; and that ‘Muñja’ here stands for the Murvā and other substances specified in the preceding verse.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.24.—‘In the absence of Muñja, it should consist of Kuśa, Ashman taka and Balvaja.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Sarhskāra, p. 433).—‘In the absence of these (Muñja, Murvā and Hemp), it should consist of Kuśa, Ashmantaka and Balvaja; and girdles should be made threefold with either one or three knots.’

Āśvalāyana-Smṛti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 432).—‘The girdle should be made triplicated; turned round three times; its knots should he three or five or seven.’