Verse 8.105

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

वाग्दैवत्यैश्च चरुभिर्यजेरंस्ते सरस्वतीम् ।
अनृतस्यैनसस्तस्य कुर्वाणा निष्कृतिं पराम् ॥ १०५ ॥

vāgdaivatyaiśca carubhiryajeraṃste sarasvatīm |
anṛtasyainasastasya kurvāṇā niṣkṛtiṃ parām || 105 ||

They should offer sacrifices to Sarasvati with half-boiled rice dedicated to the speech-goddess,—doing the best expiation for the sin of untruthfulness.—(105)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Speech-goddess’—goddess in the form of speech; the rice boiled for her is said to be ‘dedicated to the speech-goddess’;—Rice not over-boiled is called ‘chant’;—with these they should offer sacrifices.

We have ‘carubhiḥ,’ ‘with half-boiled rice,’ in the plural number, on account of the plural number in the verb ‘yajerau’, ‘they should sacrifice’; and it does not mean that each man shall offer several kinds of rice. Nor is this offering to be made by several persons collectively, as is done in the case of the Vrātyastoma offering. The plural number in the present case is exactly analogous to the plural number in such passages as—‘If it rains, many Brāhmaṇas should offer sacrifices’; and it is not like that in the case of the ‘kapiñjala birds’ (where at least three are meant).

In the case in question the lie is told for the sake of helping the Brāhmaṇa or some such person; and this lying itself is a ‘sin’;—the action of lying itself being a sin. The genitive ending in the phrase ‘anṛtasyainaḥ’ ‘sin of lying’ denotes apposition; just as in the phrase ‘Dharmakriyā’ (where ‘dharma’ and ‘kriyā’ are in apposition). Some people however hold that ‘virtue’ and ‘vice’ or ‘merit’ and ‘sin’ are produced by actions (and do not consist in the actions themselves); and according to this view in the phrase ‘anṛtasya enaḥ,’ ‘sin of lying,’ the terms ‘sin’ of ‘lying’ would not be in apposition; the ‘sin’ being the effect of the lying, and hence figuratively spoken of as being in apposition with it.

The ‘niṣkṛti’ of this sin is ‘purifying,’ ‘cleaning,’—i.e., expiation.

‘Best’—most excellent.

“Why should there be any sin in this case—when it has been declared that there is nothing wrong in lying under the circumstances mentioned.”

Some people answer this objection by pointing out that the avoiding of untruth leads to excellent results (even when the telling of untruth may be permissible): a man may, on the basis of the scriptures, have taken the vow that throughout his life he would not tell a lie; and if such a man were to tell a lie for saving the life of a man, he would incur the sin of having boon false to his vow; and it is in view of this sin that the present text prescribes the expiation. Even though such acts as the burning of a house and killing are prohibited, yet they have been sanctioned under special conditions. Similarly we have (in the preceding verse) the sanction for lying under special circumstances; hence the mention of its ‘expiation’ must be regarded as a mere reference (to the prohibition of lying in general).

Question.—“How can a sacrifice be offered to Sarasvatī with what has been dedicated to the goddess of speech?” If the rice has been ‘dedicated’ to the Speech-goddess, how can the sacrifice be regarded as offered to Sarasvatī? Or, if the two Sarasvatīs (one spoken of by the name ‘Sarasvati, ‘while the other is referred to by the name ‘speech-goddess’) combined be regarded as the deity to whom the sacrifice is offered,—then there arises this difficulty that, as a matter of fact, the exact nature of the deity of a sacrifice can be learnt entirely from words, and the two names here used are two distinct words (so that both could not refer to the same deity); for instance, if the injunction of an offering is in the form—‘the offering should be made to Agni,’—people do not use the other names of Agni,—such as ‘Jvalana’ ‘Kṛśānu’ and the like—when actually making the sacrifice. Similarly when the injunction is in the form ‘one should offer to Vāyu,’—even though it is distinctly laid down that ‘Vaya is Prāṇa’—the name ‘Prāṇa’—is not used when the offering is actually made.”

All this is quite true; ‘speech-goddess’ is the deity of the sacrifice,—the nominal affix in the term ‘vāgdaivatya’ being denotative of the deific character; and the deity is not denoted by the term ‘Sarasvatīm,’ which appears with the accusative ending. Because the Accusative ending denotes the objective, while the deity is the recipient, and not the objective.

“How then is the term ‘Sarasvatīm’ to be construed?”

The present passage is only a hortatory exaggeration, just like the assertion ‘one should make au offering to Agni, Agni is all deities;’ and what the present statement means is that ‘speech-goddess is Sarasvatī herself, and hence when the offering is made to the former she is pleased, and it reaches the other also.’

The character of the ‘deity’ is ascertained only through sacrifices; as in the case of sacrifices offered to Agni, to Prajāpati and so forth (where the fact of Agni or Prajāpati being the deity is ascertained only by the sacrifice being offered to them).

Some people explain that what is meant is that the deities are to be worshipped, the root ‘yaji’ (in ‘yajeran’) signifying the act of worshipping; and the deity worshipped forms the objective of the ‘worship’; so that the use of the Accusative in ‘Sarasvatīm’ is only right and proper. There are several such assertions as ‘he worships the deity’ (where the deity is the object of the verb to worship).”

This however is not right. As under this view the deific character of Sarasvatī will have to be deduced from somewhere else; and such an interpretation would be contrary to the dictum that ‘the deific character consists in being the recipient of a sacrificial offering.’ This dictum however, being self-sufficient, is highly authoritative.

The real explanation is that the deity to whom a sacrifice is offered is to be made the recipient of the offering, and also to be meditated upon,—according to the injunction, ‘One shall think in his mind of the deity for whom the offering is held up’; so that the deity is also the object of the act of meditating; and the accusative ending (in ‘Sarasvatīm’) actually denotes the objective itself.—(105)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Kapiñjalaiḥ’ (Medhātithi, p. 937, l. 11)—This refers to a case dealt with in Mīmāṃsā-sūtra, where it is said that whenever the plural number is used, we should understand it to mean three; for instance, when ‘Kapiñjala birds’ are spoken of as to be sacrificed. Medhātithi says that this principle should not be applied to the present case of the plural in ‘Charrubhiḥ’.

Nandana does not read the verse differently as asserted by Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 682), which adds that the plural number in ‘Carubhiḥ’ is due to the plurality of the persons referred to here—‘te’, ‘they’;—in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 432), which says that this refers to the three higher castes only.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 390);—in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 355), which adds that ‘Vāgdevatā’ here must be taken as standing for Sarasvatī, the terms ‘Vāk’ and ‘Sarasvatī’ being synonymous, specially as it is only thus that the offering shall be consistent with its name ‘Sacrifice to Sarasvatī’; it proceeds to add that the pronoun ‘te’ here stands for those witnesses who tell a lie for saving a Brāhmaṇa or a Kṣatriya from death;—in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 207); and in Kṛtyakalpataru (38b).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.105-106)

Yājñavalkya (2.83).—‘For expiating the sin involved in deposing falsely for saving the life of a man, twice-born persons should offer the cooked rice dedicated to Sarasvatī.’

Viṣṇu (8.16-17).—‘In order to expiate the sin committed (by deposing falsely for saving the life of a man), the witness, if he is a twice-born person, must pour an oblation into the fire, consecrating it with the Mantra-texts called Kūṣmāṇḍī; if he is a Śūdra, he must feed ten cows for one day.’

Baudhāyana (1.19.16).—‘Let him who has given false evidence (for any reason) drink hot milk during twelve days and nights, and pour oblations into the fire with the mantras called Kūṣmāṇḍī.’