Verse 3.133

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

यावतो ग्रसते ग्रासान् हव्यकव्येष्वमन्त्रवित् ।
तावतो ग्रसते प्रेतो दीप्तशूलर्ष्ट्ययोगुडान् ॥ १३३ ॥

yāvato grasate grāsān havyakavyeṣvamantravit |
tāvato grasate preto dīptaśūlarṣṭyayoguḍān || 133 ||

As many mouthfuls as the person ignorant of the Veda swallows out of the offerings to gods and Pitṛs, so many flaming spikes, spears and iron-balls does the man swallow after death.—(133)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Even though it is the śrāddha that forms the subject-matter of the present context, yet the present verse describes the evil results occurring to the eater; it is to this effect that it has been declared that ‘for this reason should the ignorant person fear the acceptance of gifts from this and that person.’

‘Spikes and spears’ are the names of particular weapons. Such a person is made by the attendants of the Lord of Death to eat red-hot iron-balls.

According to Vyāsa’s view, the evil result accrues to the person offering the focal, and not to the eater, nor to the ancestors. Because it cannot be right to connect the dead ancestors with the evil arising from the disobeying, by another person, of the prohibition (of the feeding ignorant persons); as in that case, there would be the absurdity of a man suffering what he has not earned. If an ignorant person has been fed by the son, what fault is there of his dead ancestors?

“But by this same reasoning the benefit also of the śrāddha should not accrue to the ancestors.”

It would certainly not accrue to them, if the śrāddha-offering had not been distinctly enjoined as being for their benefit. In the present case (of feeding Brāhmaṇas), however, there is no such injunction as that ‘this should be done by one who desires to confer a benefit on one’s son,’ as there is in the case of the Śyena sacrifice. Then, as regards the words of the present text, they can fit in also with the person ottering the food; the construction in this case being—‘that man, at whose performance of the śrāddha such a person eats, obtains such and such a result.’ What forms the subject-matter of the present context is the prohibition of the feeding of ignorant persons; and the disregarding of this prohibition would render the rite defective; and this defect in the Kite would lead to the evil result that the man would no longer be entitled to the performance of that rite [aud this would pertain to the giver, not eater, of the food]; and since the ancestors derive benefit from the śrāddha, for this reason also the transgressing of its injunction should involve guilt on the part of the son.

“What are the precise words of Vyāsa (on this subject)?”

[They are]—‘As many mouthfuls as an ignorant person swallows out of a man’s offerings, so many spikes does he swallow on going to the abode of Death.’

In place of ‘preto’ some people read ‘pretya;’ where also the term ‘having died’ pertains to the eater; and the sense of the text is that ‘the ignorant mail shall not eat of the offerings made to gods and ancestors.’—(133)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

According to Nārāyaṇa the punishment here mentioned falls on the eater.—Medhātithi mentions both explanations.

For ‘guḍān’ Nandana reads ‘hulān’ and explains it as ‘double-edged sword.’

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 449), which explains ‘śūlam’ and ‘ṛṣti’ as particular weapons,—and ‘ayoguḍa’ as ‘an iron-ball’;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 401).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Yama (Aparārka, p. 449).—‘He in whose family there has been a cessation of the Veda and the sacrificial altar for three generations is a had Brāhmaṇa.’

Vyāsa.—‘As many morsels the man ignorant of the Veda swallows out of the offerings made by a man so many darts does he swallow in the abode of Death.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 449).—‘Those countries where what should be eaten by the learned is eaten by the illiterate are beset by drought and great dangers beset them.’

Hārīta (Do.).—‘Even those born of noble families and endowed with learning,—if they be of base conduct and addicted to wicked deeds,—they are even regarded as demons. Those addicted to the killing of birds, fish and deer, serpents and tortoise and other animals are all Bad Brāhmaṇas. Who serves a Śūdra, who is supported by the King, the village-sacrificer, those living by killing and capturing—these six are Low Brāhmaṇas.’