Verse 2.176

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

नित्यं स्नात्वा शुचिः कुर्याद् देवर्षिपितृतर्पणम् ।
देवताभ्यर्चनं चैव समिदाधानमेव च ॥ १७६ ॥

nityaṃ snātvā śuciḥ kuryād devarṣipitṛtarpaṇam |
devatābhyarcanaṃ caiva samidādhānameva ca || 176 ||

Every day, having bathed and become clean, he should make offerings to deities, Sages and Fathers, and do the worshipping of the deities and the placing of fuel.—(176)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Everyday, ‘having bathed and become pure,’—i.e., having his uncleanliness removed by bath,—‘he should make offerings to Deities, Sages and Fathers.’ If he is already clean, he need not bathe; as the adding of the term ‘clean’ clearly shows that the ‘bathing’ here laid down is only for the purpose of cleanliness, and hence its performance is absolutely compulsory, like the ‘bathing’ to be done by the Snālaka, Accomplished Student. It is for this reason that in another Smṛti bathing has been prohibited (for the Religious Student); though this prohibition refers to bathing with clay, for purposes of personal adornment. Gautama however has prescribed actual bathing. Hence what is meant is that one should plunge into water like a stick, and he should remove dirt, etc., by rubbing the body with his hauds. Unless there is touching of an unolean thing, such dirt as arises from perspiration, or from contact with the dust contained in the clothing, etc., does not make one ‘unclean’; for the presence of such dirt is inevitable. Says the Brāhmaṇa—‘What is dirt? Is it the skin, or hairs of the beard or penance?’—which shows that the presence of such ‘dirt’ is conducive to spiritual merit.

“How is it known that the bathing (here laid down) is for the purposes of cleanliness?”

The present injunction cannot be taken as prompting, to the performance of divine service, a person who fulfills the two distinct qualifications of ‘having bathed’ and ‘become clean’;

(1) because as a matter of fact, one who has bathed can never remain unclean;

(2) because even for a person who has adopted cleanliness by having sipped water, etc., bathing is found to be enjoined;

(3) because we meet with such passages as ‘having bathed, sipped water, one should sip water again,’ where even for the person who has bathed a method of further cleanliness is enjoined.

From all this it is clear that what the present verse enjoins is that whenever occasion (in the shape of the contact of unclean things, etc.) arises, one should bathe, even though there be already present the ‘cleanliness’ that is generally understood as such.

Or, the present verse may be regarded as a totally independent rule, intended to prohibit bathing without special occasion arising in the shape of uncleanliness; and it is iu view of this, prohibition that we have the counter-exception—‘one should bathe after having learnt the Veda,’—which enjoins bathing at the end of Vedic Study (even in the absence of any uncleanlincss).

“He should make offerings to Deities, Sages and Fathers.”—By reason of the mention of ‘tarpaṇa,’ the ‘offering’ here meant appears to be that offering of water to the Deities and others which has been prescribed among the duties of the house-holder, under 3.283. The authors of Gṛhyasūtras also have declared this act as to be done, with water only; e.g., says Āśvalāyana (3.1.3)—‘He satisfies the Deities.’ Inordinary life also this act is known as the ‘offering of water.’

The Deities to whom this offering is to be made have been enumerated by the writers on Gṛhya—vis., Agni, Prajāpati, Brahmā and so forth. The ‘tarpaṇa,’ ‘offering,’ to these does not consist of producing in them the feeling of satisfaction (which is the etymological meaning of the term ‘tarpaṇa’); it consists only in the pouring, on their behalf, of water with joined hands. Hence what is here laid down comes to be only a sacrificial offering, in which water is the substance offered. Specially as the character of ‘deity’ could not otherwise have belonged to those to whom the offering is made; for that alone has been called ‘deity’ to whom a sacrifice is offered; it is not one who becomes satisfied. The only definition of ‘deity’ that we have is—‘Deities are recipients of hymns and recipients of offerings’; they become ‘recipients of hymns’ by becoming the objects of eulogy, and they become ‘recipients of offerings’ by becoming those to whom offerings are made. When therefore our author speaks of them as ‘tarpya,’ ‘to be satisfied,’ he uses the term in its figurative sense of ‘being recipients of the offering of water.’ The teacher and such other persons are recognised as ‘recipients’ when the cow and such things are transferred to their ownership; and the Deities also are ‘recipients.’ Thus both having the common character of ‘being recipients,’ they are described as ‘being satisfied.’ If what is laid down here meant actual ‘satisfying’ of the Deities, then this^: water-offering’ would become a purely sanctificatory act; and yet no ‘Sanctification’ is possible in the case of Deities; for the simple reason that they have not been, nor are they ever likely to lie, employed; and what has never been employed, or is not likely to be employed, cannot rightly be regarded as an object of sanctification.

‘Sages,’—i.e., those sages that happen to be one’s ‘Gotra-ṛṣis’; e.g., for those belonging to the ‘Parāśara-gotra,’ Vaśiṣṭha, Śakti and Pārāśarya would be the ‘sages’ (to whom the offering is to be made). The author of Gṛhyasūtras have however spoken of the ‘seers of Vedic Mantras’ (and not the Gotra-ṛṣis) as the ‘sages’ to whom the offering is to be made; i.e., the sages Madhucchandas, Gṛtsamada and Viśvāmitra. Since the text speaks of ‘sages’ without any qualification, it is open to us to take it as standing for both kinds of sages; but in view of the fact that the Gṛhyasūtras have specified them (as being the ‘seers of mantras’), it is only right to take these latter as meant.

‘Fathers.’—One’s dead ancestors,—father, grandfather, etc., all Sapiṇḍas and Samānodakas. In the case of the ‘Fathers,’ the ‘offering’ is to be the actual ‘Tarpaṇa’ itself. This is going to be distinctly laid down under the rules bearing upon Śrāddha.

Worshiping of the Deities.—In connection with this some ancient writers have made the following observations:—“Who are these deities, whose ‘worship’ is here laid down? If they are meant to be those pninted in picture-books—figures with four arms, with a thunderbolt in the hand and so forth,—then, since ordinary men regard these as ‘images’ (which connotes unreality), they can be called ‘Deity,’ only figuratively. If, on the other hand, they are meant to be those related to hymns and offerings,—which are indicated by Vedic injunctions, and also by the words of mantras, and which are called so by persons versed in the use of words and their denotations,—such as ‘Agni,’ ‘Agni-Soma,’ ‘Mitra-Varuṇa,’ ‘Indra,’ ‘Viṣṇu,’ and so forth—then, in that case, their character of ‘Deity,’ would be dependent upon the said acts (of offering, etc.), and not upon the fact of their having any connection with the denotation (of the term ‘Deity’); and further, a particular (Deity) would be the ‘Deity’ for only that offering which is enjoined as to be offered to him; e.g., when the ‘Cake baked upon eight pans,’ is called ‘āgneya’ (dedicated to Agni), Agni becomes the ‘deity’ only of that cake, and not of that which is called ‘saurya’ (dedicated to Sūrya).”

From the above considerations the conclusion that the ancient writers have deduced is as follows:—In cases where the term cannot be. taken in its direct denotation, it is only right to take it in the figurative sense; specially as such is the actual usage. Hence the ‘worship’ enjoined in the present verse is that of images.

What the truth on this point is we shall explain below, under verse 189.

‘Placing of fuel’—throwing into the fire pieces of wood, every morning and evening.—(176)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Snātvā’—“He should bathe for cleanliness, not for pleasure; according to Gautama 2.8,2 and 9.61; Baudhāyana 1.2.3.39 and Viṣṇu 28.5”.—Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 62);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 117).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (28. 4, 5).—‘Both times, there should he bath and fire-tending;—dipping in water like a wooden log.’

Vaśiṣṭha (7.7).—‘With speech controlled, eating at the fourth, sixth and eighth parts of the day,—he should go alms-begging.’

Yājñavalkya (1.22).—‘Bathing with mantras dedicated to the deity Apas, water-sprinkling, breath-control, praying to the Sun, and repetition of the Gāyatrī.,—daily.’

Gautama (2.12, 14).—‘Fire-kindling, alms-begging;—bathing in water.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 02).—‘With sleep, indolence, anger and his own self under control, he shall avoid sleeping and sitting on the couch, and the cleansing of the teeth; he shall sleep alone on kuśa-gass, and shall never emit his semen anywhere.’