Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi

by Ganganatha Jha | 1920 | 1,381,940 words | ISBN-10: 8120811550 | ISBN-13: 9788120811553

This is the English translation of the Manusmriti, which is a collection of Sanskrit verses dealing with ‘Dharma’, a collective name for human purpose, their duties and the law. Various topics will be dealt with, but this volume of the series includes 12 discourses (adhyaya). The commentary on this text by Medhatithi elaborately explains various t...

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

न्युप्य पिण्डांस्ततस्तांस्तु प्रयतो विधिपूर्वकम् ।
तेषु दर्भेषु तं हस्तं निर्मृज्याल्लेपभागिनाम् ॥ २१६ ॥

nyupya piṇḍāṃstatastāṃstu prayato vidhipūrvakam |
teṣu darbheṣu taṃ hastaṃ nirmṛjyāllepabhāginām || 216 ||

Self-controlled, he should, after having offered those balls on Kuśa-blades, according to rule, wipe that hand on those same (Kuśa-blades), for the sake of the “Partakers of Smearings.”—(216)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Nyupya’—‘having offered,’—‘on kuśa-blades’—he should wipe that hand on those same kuśa-blades,—those same on which the balls have been offered.

In accordance with the opinion of other Smṛtis, the wiping is to be done on the root-end of the kuśa-blades.

Others have held that this rule does not mean simply that the food and water attaching to the hand should be so wiped; in fact, even though nothing may be attached to the hand, yet even the hand itself should be wiped on the blades. The reason for this is that the act here prescribed is not in the nature of the ‘disposal of remnants,’ in which case alone it could he held to be done only when the stated conditions would be present. Specially as what is prescribed is, not that ‘one should wipe what is attaching to the hand,’ but that ‘he should wipe the hand.’

Against this it might be argued that—“we find it stated that the act is ‘for the sake of the Partakers of Smearings,’ which shows that it cannot be done when there is no ‘smearing’ at all. Why, then, should it be said that, even when there is nothing sticking to the hand, the act should be done?”

The answer to this is as follows:—It is possible that solid food may not stick to the hand; but when the ball of food is being rolled up, the juices of the food are sure to stick to the hand, by reason of the contact with heat; and it is this that is called the ‘smearing.’

The genitive ending in ‘lepabhāginām’ connotes the connection of the act of wiping with the particular class of Pitṛs. Any such beings as ‘Partakers of Smearings’ are not visible to the eye; hence it is not possible to bring about their ‘possession’ in connection with the ‘smearing.’ Hence, all that is meant is that ‘one should think in his mind that the smearing is meant to be the share of the ‘Partakers of Smearings;’ or, he may even say this in so many words.

Others have held that ancestors above the great grandfather are spoken of as ‘Partakers of Smearings.’ According to this view, if the names of those ancestors are not pronounced, they may be referred to by means of such expressions as ‘this to the father of my great-grandfather,’ ‘this to the grandfather of my great-grandfather,’ and so forth.

The singular number in ‘hand’ shows that the ball is to be offered with a single hand in the ‘apasavya’ form.

Self-controlled’—this is a mere reiteration: such control having been already prescribed above.

According to rule’—refers to the rules of procedure laid down in other scriptures; e.g., Śaṅkha says—‘One should offer the ball along with sandal-paint, garlands, incense, doth and dressings.’ The ‘rule’ that has been prescribed in the text by Manu himself has been stated in his own words; hence the phrase, ‘according to rule,’ would be meaningless (if it referred to that rule itself). It is for this reason that this phrase should be taken as summing up the details prescribed in other scriptures.—(216).

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 601), without comment;—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 754) as laying down what should be done after the offering of the Balls has been made;—in Smṛtitattva (p. 177), which explains that the ‘Lepabhāginaḥ,’ ‘Partakers of smearings’ are the ancestors, the great-great-grandfather, his father and his grandfather;—one’s own father, grandfather and great-grandfather being called ‘pīṇḍabhāginaḥ’;—the same explanation is repeated by the same work on p. 239.

It is evidently a misprint in Buhler’s note where he includes the ‘great-grandfather’ under the ‘lepabhāginaḥ’.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 507);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1449), which has the following notes:—‘Nyupya’, having deposited on the kuśa-grass,—‘prayataḥ’ with proper care,—such care as implies concentration of mind, freedom from forgetfulness and so forth; in fact it stands for the entire procedure,—‘vidhipūrvakam’ refers to rules prescribed in ordinances other than those of Manu himself,—‘teṣu darbheṣu’, those kuśa-blades upon which the Balls have been deposited,—‘tam’, that hand by which the Ball has been offered—‘lepabhāginaḥi.e., intended for those Pitṛs who are entitled to the ‘smearings’ i. e., the four ancestors, above the great-grandfather;—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 190).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (73.22).—‘The hand should be rubbed over the root-end of the kuśa-blades, with the mantra atra pitaro mādayadhvam

Vyāghra (Aparārka, p. 507).—‘The smearing of the hand one should wipe at the root-end of the kuśa.’

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: