Verse 8.208

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

यस्मिन् कर्मणि यास्तु स्युरुक्ताः प्रत्यङ्गदक्षिणाः ।
स एव ता आददीत भजेरन् सर्व एव वा ॥ २०८ ॥

yasmin karmaṇi yāstu syuruktāḥ pratyaṅgadakṣiṇāḥ |
sa eva tā ādadīta bhajeran sarva eva vā || 208 ||

In connection with a rite, when specific fees are prescribed for its several parts,—will one man take all these, or shall they all share them?

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse adds something more in connection with Vedic rites, which is relevant to the present context.

In connection with rites, fees are as a rule proscribed for them as a whole, and not with reference to each priest,—the injunction being in the form ‘the fee for it shall he twelve hundred’; this same injunction becomes applicable by ‘transference’ also to such sacrifices as grow out of, and are analogous to, that in connection with which the fee has been prescribed;—such sacrifices, for instance, as the llājasūya and the rest;—now in connection with these latter, it is found that with reference to certain parts of the rite, distinct speciñc fees have been prescribed as to be paid to a particular priest specifically,—e.g., ‘the bright gold shall be given to the Adhvaryu’;—these are what are called (in the text) ‘specific fees for its several parts.’

Now the question arises—Is the gift, like the other sacrificial fees, connected with the Adhvaryu, only in the sense that he is one among four partners, and it belongs to all the priests, the Adhraryu being only the channel? or that it belongs to the Adhvaryu alone, the others receiving a share only out of the main fee?

This is the question propounded by the verse.

The term ‘pratyaṅgadakṣiṇā’ means the fees directly prescribed in so many words in connection with special rites as to be given to particular persons. Or the term ‘pratyaṅga’ may mean for each several part.

‘Will one man take all these,’—the gift being connected with the chief priest only,—or shall others all ‘share them,’—those, equally with the chief priest, having officiated at the performance;—just as they do in the case of the main sacrificial fee?—Such is the sense of the question.

The answer to this is that when a certain fee has been prescribed for a particular person, it is to be taken by him alone: as it is only thus that the prescribed act of ‘giving’ could he regarded as fulfilled. The mention of the particular recipient in the rule could not be intended to serve any transcendental purpose (and no other purpose could it serve, if the fee were not actually meant to be received by that person alone).—(208)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 119) which adds the following notes:—‘Praiyaṃśadakṣiṇāḥ’ (which is its reading for ‘pratyaṅgadakṣināḥ’), the fees that have been prescribed for a particular priest, in connection with particular sections of an elaborate sacrifice; e.g., at the ceremony of anointment two golden vessels are given to the Adhvaryu priest;—in regard to these, the question is—Is the whole of that special fee to be taken by that one priest in reference to whom it has been prescribed? Or that individual is only the formal recipient, and the fee has to be equally divided among all the priests taking part in the performance?

It is quoted in Kṛtyakalapataru (90a), which explains ‘pratyaṃśadakṣiṇā’ (which is its reading for ‘pratyaṅgadakṣiṇā’) as ‘the fees that have been prescribed as the special shares of particular priests’, and it adds that this rule is meant to raise the question whether when, e.g., two gold Prakāśas are prescribed as to be given at the Abhiṣecanīya Rites, to the Adhvaryu,—are the two articles to be taken by that priest, or are they to be divided among all the priests concerned?

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (Vivādaratnākara, p. 120).—(Same as Manu).

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 837).—(Same as Manu).