Verse 2.28

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

स्वाध्यायेन व्रतैर्होमैस्त्रैविद्येनेज्यया सुतैः ।
महायज्ञैश्च यज्ञैश्च ब्राह्मीयं क्रियते तनुः ॥ २८ ॥

svādhyāyena vratairhomaistraividyenejyayā sutaiḥ |
mahāyajñaiśca yajñaiśca brāhmīyaṃ kriyate tanuḥ || 28 ||

 This body is made godly,—by a thorough study of the three Vedas, by Observances, by libations, by offerings, by children, by the Great Sacrifices and by the Sacrifices. (28)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘svādhyāya’ here stands for the act of studying (in general; and not for Vedic study, which is what it ordinarily means); and the subject-matter of the study is therefore indicated by the term ‘of theThree Vedas,’ ‘traividyena.’ Even though the two terms (‘svādhyāyena’ and ‘traividyena’) do not stand in close proximity, yet they are construed together on account of their denotations being correlated, in accordance with the law that ‘when the denotation of one term is connected with that of another, they should be taken as correlated.’ Hence, even though both the terms are in the same (Instrumental) case, yet one (traividyena) may be taken as denoting the object of the other (svādhyāyena) by altering the signification of the case-ending; the phrase ‘traividyena svādhyāyena’ thus being construed as ‘trayāṇām Vedānām (traividyasya) adhyayanena (svādhyāyena),’ ‘by a thorough study of the three Vedas’

‘Traividya’ is the compounded form of ‘trayo’; the formation of the term being similar to that of such terms as ‘chaturvarṇya’ and the rest.

Or, ‘svādhyāyena' may be taken (as usual) in the sense of the study of the verbal text of the Vedas, and ‘traividyena' in that of the study of their meaning.

‘By Observances’—by the ‘Sāvitra’ and other observances kept by the Religious Student.

‘By Libations’—i.e., those that are poured at the time of the Initiation,—or the kindling of fire with fuels, which the Religious Student has to do every morning and evening, may be spoken as ‘libation,’ on account of Fire being the receptacle of the act of kindling (just as it is of the act of pouring libations).

“Is not the putting of fuel on the fire really a ‘libation’—that you should call it so simply from the said analogy?”

People say that it is not really a ‘libation because ‘libations’ and ‘offerings’ consist only of eatable substances.

“How then does the author himself say (under 2.186) that ‘the Religious Student should, every morning and evening offer the libation (juhuyāt) of fuels into the Fire’?”

It is only in a figurative sense that the ‘laying of fuel’ is called ‘homa’, ‘libation’; the idea being that the fuel for the kindling of fire is thrown into it in the same manner as substances are poured as libations; and it is on the basis of this analogy that the kindling is called ‘libation’ In the original injunction (of fire-kindling) the words used are ‘sami dham-ādadhyat,’ ‘should lay the fuel’ [where the word ‘homa,’ ‘libation’ is not used]. As for the words (in Manu, 2.186) ‘agnim juhuyāt tābhih,’ (‘should offer the libation of fuels into fire’), we shall point out later on that they are purely explanatory (not mandatory), and mean something quite different; and in explanations, figurative expressions are not out of place.

[This is the view of some people]. The right view however is that the offering of any fit and proper substance constitutes the acts of ‘Yāga’ (Sacrifice) and ‘Homa’ (Libation). It is only in this sense that we can rightly comprehend several injunctions. For instance, we have the injunction ‘praitaram praharati,’ where ‘praharati,’ is taken to mean ‘offer in sacrifice’ and ‘prastaram’ (‘bed of Kuśa-grass’) is taken as the substance offered [and certainly the ‘Kuśa-bed’ is not an eatable substance],

“In this particular instance, we have to take the ‘sacrifice’ as consisting of the offering of the Grass-bed, simply because it is so directly enjoined. And further, Kuśa-grass also is eatable for some.”

Well, how is it then in the case of the ‘Śākala-homa’ (where pebbles are offered)?”

“In that case also it has to be done in that way, because of the direct injunction—‘one should offer the pebbles’.”

What explanation can there be of the case of the ‘Grahayāga,’ where fuels of the arka and other plants are offered to each of the Grahas?

From all this it is clear that wherever we have the term ‘juhuyāt’ (‘should offer libation’) and the connection of a Deity also is mentioned, in the original Injunction, the act is to be regarded as ‘Homa,’ ‘Libation.’

‘By offerings’—i.e., by offerings to the Gods and Ṛṣis.

Up to this point we had the duties of the Religious Student.

Next follow the duties of the Householder.

‘By children,’—i.e., by the act of begetting children.

‘By the great sacrifices’—i.e., by the five ‘sacrifices,’ consisting of Brahtnayajña and the rest.

‘By sacrifices,’—i.e., by the Jyotiṣṭoma and other Vedic Sacrifices.

The question being raised that—“if there were any useful purpose served by these acts, then alone could there be any use for the sacraments which fit a man for these acts,”—the Author says—‘this body is made godly,’ ‘tanuḥ.’—‘Brahma’ here stands for the Supreme God, the Creator; and this ‘tanu,’ body, is made ‘related to God,’ ‘godly,’—by all these acts, which are laid down in the Veda and in the Smṛtis. ‘Godliness’ meant here is that which consists in being transformed into the very essence of God; as this is the highest end of man; as for other forms of ‘relation to God,’ this is already an accomplished fact for all beings,—for the simple reason that God is the Creator of all things; and hence these other relations cannot be anything to be longed for. For this reason it is the attainment of ‘Final Release’ that must be meant here.

The term ‘brāhmī,’ ‘godly’—as also the term ‘tanu,’ ‘body’—refers to the personality ensouling the body; as it is the personality that is consecrated by the sacraments; and it is the personality that attains Final Release; as for the physical body, it entirely perishes.

Others have explained the phrase ‘it made godly’ to mean that ‘it is made capable of reaching Brahma as (they argue) the actual ‘becoming Brahman’ is not possible by means of acts alone; Final Release (which is what is meant by⁽becoming Brahman’) is'attainable only by means of Knowledge and Action conjointly. Hence what the text means is that the man, by the said acts, becomes entitled to meditate upon Ātman (Brahman). To this end we have the Vedic text—‘O Gārgi, when anyone, without knowing the Imperishable One, sacrifices, pours oblations, performs penances, studies the Veda or gives charities, all this becomes perishable’ (Bṛha dāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 3. 8. 10).

-------------

Objection.—

“Nowhere in the Veda is the attaining of Brahman declared to be the reward of the actions here enumerated. For instance, (A) as for the compulsory acts, they are prescribed as being without rewards. If we.were to assume rewards, such an assumption would be purely human in its source (and as such not authoritative). And since the Veda has declared them to be compulsory by means of such phrases ‘throughout one’s life’ and the like, there can be no justification for applying the principle.of the V sacrifice (and assume the reward to consist in the attaining of heaven). If it were argued that—‘from the present verse of Manu itself we learn that the said Acts bring the mentioned rewards,’—then it would come to this that only such persons are entitled to these acts as long for Final Release; which would deprive them of their compulsory character; and this would be contrary to what has been declared in the Veda. It may be argued that—‘inasmuch as no one ever undertakes a fruitless act, (if no rewards were mentioned) the laying down of the acts would be futile.’ ‘But there may be no performance at all; that does not matter; the use of a ‘source of knowledge’ lies in making things known; if it has succeeded in doing this, its purpose has been served; and the present verse does clearly indicate some acts as to be done; and if this indication is accomplished (the purpose of the scriptural injunction has been served); if people do not perform those acts, they transgress the behests of the scripture, and thereby incur sin. All old writers have explained the sense of the Injunctive etc., on these lines. If a servant does not perform his duty, as he is ordered to doby his master, cither he does not obtain his wages, or he incurs sin. Now as regards the compulsory acts, since no rewards are mentioned (in the form of wages), the evil that follows is not in the form of losing the reward, but in the form of suffering pain. It is only in this manner that we can explain the fact of, all men being required to perform the compulsory acts. From all this it follows that in the case of compulsory acts there is no reward. (B) As regards the optional acts, other results have boen declared as following from them, and not Fin l Release (the one mentioned here). How then could this Final Release be such an end of man as is accomplished by the mere performance of acts?”

It is just in view of these considerations that the text has been explained as a mere ‘arthavāda,’ meant to eulogise the injunction of the Sacraments.

Some people have taken the expression ‘godly’ figuratively—on some basis or other—to mean ‘capable of reciting the Veda and of performing the acts prescribed in the Veda’; ‘brahma’ being taken as equivalent to ‘Veda.’

“How is it then that Gautama (8. 8) has spoken of ‘forty sacraments’? There the Soma-sacrifice also has been mentioned as a sacrament; and certainly a primary sacrifice (as the Soma-sacrifice undoubtedly is) can never have the character of a mere consecratory sacrament. Nor is it possible to take this part of Gautama’s Sutra as an arthavāda; as all the forty sacraments are spoken of as being on the same footing.”

As a matter of fact, the statement of Gautama is purely commendatory, the Soma-sacrifice being spoken as a ‘sacrament’ in the sense that it brings about in the performer’s soul a peculiar aptitude.

Similarly in the present context real Sacraments have been mentioned along with non-sacraments with a view to indicate that both equally lead to the same result; and the purpose served by this is to show that the performance of all of them is necessary. It is thus not necesary to take the verse as apart from the section dealing with Sacraments.

Then again, the term ‘is made’ is meant to be commendatory, as is shown by the fact that we have the present tense, and not the injunctive affix. So that there is nothing to justify the idea that ‘the attaining of Brahman’ is the reward (of what is enjoined). In fact the present verse does not enjoin any actions; and hence there cannot arise any desire on our part to know their result, which could justify the assumption that the present tense has the force of the Injunctive; as has been done in the case of the Rātrīsatra, in connection with which even though we have the present tense in the term ‘pratit ṣṭhanṭi’ (‘obtain a standing’), yet it is taken as laying down the result following from the Bātrisatra.

From all this it follows that all that is said in the verse is for the eulogising of the Sacraments.

Some people interpret the verse by breaking it up into two parts—taking it to mean that ‘the attaining of Brahman is the reward of the compulsory acts, and of the optional acts the rewards are such as are actually mentioned in the Veda along with these acts.’

But there is no authority for this; because the entire verse is purely commendatory: specially as it has been already explained that the compulsory acts are performed without the idea of any rewards. It is in view of this that our Author has said (under 2.2) that ‘it is not right to be absorbed in desires.’—(28)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Vrataiḥ’—(a) ‘The particular observances kept by the student while studying particular portions of the Veda (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa);—‘the voluntary restraints, such as abstention from honey, meat and such things’—(Kullūka and Rāghavānanda)—‘such observances as the Prājāpatya penance’ (Nandana).

‘Traividyena’—‘By learning the meaning of the three Vedas’ (Medhātithi and Nandana);—‘By undertaking the vow to study the three Vedas in thirty-six years, as mentioned under 3.1 (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

‘Ijyayā’—‘Ijyā’ here stands for ‘the offering to the gods, sages and Pitṛs’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—or ‘the Pākayajñas’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

‘Brāhmīyam kṛyate tanuḥ.’—‘Related to Brahman;’ i. e. ‘united with the Supreme Spirit’—according to Medhātithi, who also notes that according to ‘others,’ the meaning is that ‘the body is made fit to attain Brahman.’ As the reference is to the ‘tanuḥ,’ ‘body,’ Burnell understands that ‘Brahman’ stands here for the ‘world-substance, not as a spiritual, but as a physical force’. This however is entirely off the mark.

This verse is quoted in the Mitākṣarā (on 1. 103, p. 76) as setting forth the desirable results acruing to the man who offers the Vaiśvadeva offerings, which latter, on this account, cannot be regarded as sanctificatory of the food that has been cooked.

This verse is quoted in the Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 140), where the words are thus explained:—‘Svādhyāya’ stands for the learning of the Veda;—‘Vrata’ for the Sāvitrī and other observances;—‘Traividyā’ for the knowledge of. the meaning of the three Vedas;—‘Ijyā’ for the worshipping of the gods and others;—‘Brahmā’ for related to Brahman, through the knowledge of that Supreme Being.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(Verses 27 and 28)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.27.