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...

Verse 2.29 [The ‘jātakarma’ sacrament]

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

प्राङ् नाभिवर्धनात् पुंसो जातकर्म विधीयते ।
मन्त्रवत् प्राशनं चास्य हिरण्यमधुसर्पिषाम् ॥ २९ ॥

prāṅ nābhivardhanāt puṃso jātakarma vidhīyate |
mantravat prāśanaṃ cāsya hiraṇyamadhusarpiṣām || 29 ||

For the male child, before the cutting of the umbilical cord the performance of the Jāta-karma (Birth-rite) has been ordained: (it consists of) the feeding of him with gold, honey and butter, to the accompaniment of Mantras.—(29).

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Vardhana’ is cutting.

Jātakarma’ is the name of the particular rite. The exact form of this rite is to be learnt from the Gṛhya-sūtras, In answer to the question as to which is the act to which the name ‘Jāta-karma’ is applied, the author adds—‘the feeding with gold, honey and butter?.’ ‘Of him’ refers to the child; or, it may refer to the rite; the sense being that ‘of rite’ of Jāta-karma, the principal part consists in the feeding of the child to the accompaniment of mantras.

To the accompaniment of mantras’,—i.e., the act should be done along with the reciting of mantras. Though the present text does not specify the mantras, yet, since all Smṛtis have the same end in view, we must accept those same mantras that are prescribed in other Smṛtis. Hence it follows that the mantras that should be recited are those that have been mentioned in the Gṛhya-sūtras.

“If it is necessary to call in the aid of the Gṛhya-sūtras, the substances (Gold, Honey and Butter) also need not have been mentioned here; as in the Gṛhya-sūtra we find the following words (in Apastamba’s Gṛhya-sūtra, 1.15.1).—‘The child should be made to eat butter, honey and the essence of gold with a golden ladle, with the mantra, Prati dadāmi madhuno ghṛtaṣya etc.’ Further, there are many Gṛhya-sūtras; the mantras also that are prescribed in the various Gṛhyaṣūtras are different; the very procedure of the rite is variously prescribed; so that (if we were to seek for information from the Gṛhyas) we would fail to know which one of these we should adopt. It might he argued that the name of the particular Vedic Rescension (which the performer has studied and with which a particular Gṛhyasūtra is connected) would help to determine the exact procedure to be adopted. But in that case, there can be no use in Manu laying down the ‘Birth-rite’ and the other sacraments; as these also could be learnt from the Gṛhyasūtras themselves. Every sūtra is named after a particular Vedic Rescension,—e.g., ‘Gṛhya of the Kaṭhas,’ ‘Gṛyya of the Āśvalāyanas’ and so forth; so that a man would naturally adopt that procedure which is laid down in the Gṛhya that is named after the Rescension to which he belongs.”

To the above our answer is as follows:—The fact that the substances (Honey, etc.) mentioned in the text are just those prescribed in the Gṛhyas in connection with the ‘Jātakarma,’ shows that the rites mentioned (here and in the Gṛhya) are the same. This is what leads us to the recognition that—‘the rite ordained here having the same name and the same substances as those found in the Gṛhyas, this must be the same as that.’ In several cases we recognise a thing through its qualities. And when the rites are one and the same, if a certain detail is not mentioned in one text, it has to be brought in from the other text, specially when there is no inconsistency between the two. It has been decided that th e act (of Agnihotra) prescribed in the several rescensional Vedic texts is one and the same; and the analogy of this leads us to conclude that the act (of the sacrament) as prescribed in the several Smṛtis (of Manu and of the Gṛhya-sūtras) must be one and the same. As regards the uncertainty that has been urged by the objector as to the exact procedure to be adopted, in face of there being many, Gṛhyas laying down diverse procedures,—our answer to that is that all the Gṛhyas being equally authoritative, what one has got to do is that when the details varying in them are those relating to the end, he may adopt any one of them optionally, while if the details varying relate to different purposes, he should employ them all. The name of the Vedic Rescension can never form the determining factor. Because the name of the Vedic text in relation to a particular individual is not such an invariable factor as his ‘yotra and pravara’ are; for a man is called after that Vedic Rescension which he happens to study: if he has studied the ‘Kāthaka’ rescension he is called ‘Kāṭhaka,’ and if he has studied the Ṛgveda, he is called ‘Bahvṛca’; and in regard to studying there is no such hard and fast rule as that ‘such and such a man should study only such and such a rescensional text.’ Then again, a man very often studies several Vedic texts, as is ordained (by Manu, in 3.2)—‘Having studied the Vedas &c. &c. and one has studied all the three Vedas comes to be known by all such names—as ‘Ka?thuma’ (Sāmavedin) ‘Kāṭhāka’ (Yajurvedin) and Bahvṛca’ (Ṛgvedin); and in this case one must have recourse to option. For the man however who studies a single Vedic text, it is only right that he should adopt the procedure prescribed in the Gṛhya that is named after that Vedic text; in fact, he can follow only that procedure; as he has studied only the mantras occurring in that particular text; and these alone he can recite (properly). In fact the only knowledge that he possesses of the Rite is what is derived from that particular text.

“As for the man’s knowing the mantras, since the Veda is studied only for the performance of the rites, the man would read up just those mantras (also of the other texts) that might be used in a certain performance.”

Our answer to this is that the study of the Veda is undertaken in virtue of the Injunction of ‘Vedic study;’ and until one has studied the Veda, he is not entitled to perform any religious act; it is not (as the objector thinks) that the Veda is studied only for the performing of the acts. In fact, the name that has been applied to the various Gṛhyas—as ‘this is the Gṛhya of the Kaṭhas,’ ‘this is the Gṛhya of the Vājasaneyins’ and so forth—is simply for the purpose of indicating what particular mantras have to be employed by certain persons; and when the majority of mantras prescribed in a certain Gṛhya happen to be those that have been read in a particular Vedic text, that Gṛhya comes to be named after that text. Further, when Gṛhya Smṛti is a trustworthy source of knowledge, even though it may be named after the ‘Kaṭhas,’ it cannot fail to make its purport known to the Ṛgvedins also; and what forms the purport of the Vedas and the Smṛtis is that ‘such and such an act should be done.’ So that when one has come to know that ‘this should be done,’ there can be nothing to limit the performance of that act to any particular class of persons, unless there is a Vedic text specifying any particular performer;—as for instance, when the performance of the Tanūnapāt Prayāja is restricted to the ‘Vaśiṣṭha’ clan,—or a distinct prohibition sets aside the said ‘performability.’ Neither of these two circumstances is present in the case in question. Nor can it presumed that the Ṛgveda is not an authority for the Kaṭhas, or vice versa. Because until a particular Vedic text has been actually studied, there is no difference between the ‘Kaṭha’ and the ‘Non-Kaṭha.’ As regards the ‘Gotra’ (the Clan-name), this is fixed for each man (being determined by his birth). So that the ‘Gṛhya’ of a man does not stand on the same footing as his ‘Gotra.’

This [that the Gṛhya of the man is that connected with the Vedic text that he has studied] is what is meant by the assertion—‘He who renounces his won Gṛhyaṣūtra and acts according to another Gṛhyasūtra &c.’ In fact the man can carry into practice the precepts of that text only which he h as studied. Consequently if one were to give up the rules of his own Vedic text to perform a rite in accordance with the Vedic text studied by his forefathers, and adopt the procedure laid down in the Gṛhyas belonging to this latter, he would incur the sin of ‘renouncing his own Vedic text’; or in this case the sin of ‘renouncing the text’ will have been committed by the father who did not teach the boy that particular text which had been continually studied in his family; and no blame attaches, in this, to the boy himself. In a case where the boy has lost his father and betakes himself to the teacher, as Jābāla is described as having done, it would be right for the Teacher to teach him that Text which had been studied in the boy’s family,—in accordance with the law ‘one should proceed by the path by which his father and grandfather have proceeded’ (Manu, 4.178); ‘and the renouncing of the hereditary Vedic text’ would be justifiable only in the event of its study being absolutely impossible.

From all this we deduce the following conclusion:—All the sacraments—‘Jātakarma’ and the rest—have been prescribed in all the Smṛtis; and where they lay down different details pertaining to diverse purposes, they should all be employed; but when any such details pertain to the same end and are mutually inconsistent, then there should be an option as to the particular detail to be employed.

Of the male child’—is added with a view to exclude the female and the sexless child.

Others however have held that there is no special significance attaching to the masculine gender of the word; because the context refers to all ‘twice-born’ persons in general as to undergo the sacramental rites. That which is meant to be ‘consecrated’ forms the principal factor; and it has been decided that no significance attaches to any such qualifications gender, number and the like, when applied to the principal factor; e.g., even though the washing of the cups is laid down in the words—‘one should wash the cup’ (in the singular),—yet all the cups are washed. Similarly when it is laid down, that ‘the man who is feverish, or just free from fever, should be fed at the close of the day,’—the feverish woman also is fed at that same time; and it is because the present verse affords the idea of the sacrament being performed for females also that the Author has added the interdict (in 2.66) that ‘the whole of this is to be done for women without Mantras’ [otherwise, if the present verse itself had excluded the women, there would be no point in this further interdict]. Then again, marriage (which is also a sacrament) is actually spoken of (in 9. 203) in connection with Eunuchs.

Our answer to the above is as follows:—The word ‘male’ does not denote the ‘human’ genus in general, in the way that the word ‘man’ does; and it is only if it did have that denotation that there might he some ground for not attaching any significance to the gender expressed by the particular case-ending. What the word ‘male’ denotes in all cases is a particular gender in the form of masculinity, as pertaining to all things, moving and unmoving, corporeal and incorporeal. In the present case the gender is denoted by the basic noun (‘pumān’ in ‘puruṣaḥ’) itself; and it is only in connection with what is denoted by the case-ending, that the question of significance or non-significance can arise; and the reason for this lies in the fact that the denotation of number (or gender) is not the only function of the case-ending,—it may have its use simply in the denoting of any one of several such factors as the ‘accusative character’ and so forth [so that if no significance is attached to any one of these several factors, it does not matter]. In the present case however (where the gender is denoted by the basic noun itself), if no significance were attached to the gender, then the word ‘pumān’ would become absolutely meaningless. As in the very instance cited above, full significance is actually attached to the denotation of the basic noun ‘Cup’; and this is done simply because the sentence would, otherwise, become absolutely meaningless.

The following argument might be urged—“It is not only what is signified by the case-ending that may be non-significant; as a matter of fact, the denotation of the entire word, if it qualifies the subject, is regarded as non-significant. For instance, in the case of the text which lays down an expiatory rite in the case of one for whom ‘both offering materials have been spoilt.’—though we have the word ‘both,’ yet the expiatory rite is performed even on the spoiling of even one of the two materials, milk and curd; and no significance is attached to the denotation of the entire word ‘both’ (which qualifies the subject.)”

To this objection some people offer the following answer:—The present case is not analogous to the case just cited. In the latter, the ‘Pañcaśarāva rite’ (which is the expiatory rite referred to) is not done for the sake of the offering-material; all that is meant is that the spoiling of the materials provides the occasion for the performance of the rite;—while in the case in question, the sacraments are done for the sake of the Boy.

This difference (between the two cases) however is of no consequence at all. Because as a matter of fact, it is only with a view to avoid a syntactical split that significance is not attached to qualifications; and even though the Rite were for the sake of the material, that would not prevent the said syntactical split.

Hence the real answer to the objection is as follows:—The passage beginning with ‘vaidikaiḥ karmabhiḥ, etc.,’ (Verse 26) is what constitutes the original injunction of the ‘Jātakarma’ sacrament; and throughout this passage it is the male that is indicated as the person to be ‘consecrated.’ So that if no significance were attached to this male-character, the whole passage would become meaningless. It is this same consideration which leads us (in the case of the passage cited by the objection) to attach due significance to the denotation of the word ‘offering-material’ (even though none is attached to its qualification ‘both’).

“Well, then the sacraments would be performed for the Śūdra also; as the passage does not specify any particular caste.”

Certainly there is no possibility of the sacraments for Śūdras, because sacraments are performed to the accompaniment of Mantras. Or, we may take the term ‘of the twice-born persons,’ occurring in a supplementary passage, as providing the necessary restriction. Nor does the term ‘of the twice-born persons’ in the said passage pertain (as a qualification) only to what is therein enjoined; so that it cannot be urged that, “in as much as the necessity of their consecration has been mentioned in that passage, no significance can attach to the term ‘male’ in the present passage; just as none is attached to the term ‘both’ in the passage referred to above.”

As for the fact of a later text (Verse 66) speaking of the Rites for females being ‘without mantras,’ this could be taken as an independent injunction; without necessarily depending upon the fact of the ‘sacrament with mantras’ being possible for women also (under the present verse; of which the later verse has been regarded as an exception, by the objector above).

As for the ‘marriage of sexless persons’;—‘sexless’ persons are of various kinds—e.g., (a) those whose semen is ‘airy,’ (Impotent), (b) those who have the signs of both sexes (Hermaphrodite), and (c) those whose organs are inactive. All these people cannot be excluded from all the ‘sacraments’; because, in the first place their impotence, etc., cannot be detected at the time (during infancy) when the ‘Jātakarma’ and the other (earlier) sacraments are performed; and secondly (even when detected) the said impotence, etc., may be such as might be cured, and certainly a characteristic that is not of a permanent character can never serve as a disqualification. For instance, absence of wealth; this is not a permanent characteristic, like the caste of a person; for the man who has no wealth comes to acquire wealth; having remained poor for a long time, a man becomes very rich in a single day. It is on the killing of such a (confirmed and permanent) eunuch that one becomes purified (of the sin) by the giving of a load of dry grass; and the reason for this lies in the fact that he has had no ‘sacraments,’ he has not been ‘initiated,’ and his life is of no use to any person.

From all this it follows that the present text prescribes the sacraments for males only,—the later Verse (66) prescribes them for females as to be done ‘without mantras,’—and for eunuchs there are no sacraments at all.—(29)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Hiranya-madhu-sarpisām’—Though the text clearly says that the child is to be fed with gold, honey and butter, it appears from the Gṛhya Sūtras that the last two substances only are to be given to the child, after they have been touched with a piece of gold.’—Buhler.

Mantravat.’—The mantras are those used by his own sect or his gurus.

Hopkins has the following note here:—“This commentator’s (Medhātithi’s) use of ‘some think’, ‘some explain’ is such, as in this passage, to suggest that they are occasionally used hypothetically, a possible view being set up and overthrown rather than actual statement that other commentators explain the passage so and so; a modification of meaning that would somewhat affect the amount of criticism devoted to the text before Medhātithi’s day.”

Though this may be true, to a certain extent, regarding the references in the form of ‘kechit’, it cannot be so regarding those in the form ‘anye tu’ or ‘anyevya cakṣate’ and such other moṛe definite references to other explanations.

This verse has been quoted by Raghunandana in his Smṛtitattva (Jyotiṣ, p. 648)—dealing with the Jātakarma Sacrament;—also in the Madanapārijāta (p. 353).

This verse is quoted in the Puruṣārthacintāmaṇi (p. 433) as laying down the time for the ‘Birth-sacrament’;—in the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 23) which adds the following notes—‘Vardhana’ is cutting; some people have held that no significance attaches to the masculine gender of ‘puruṣaḥ’; but Medhātithi has held that it is meant to be significant, there being no such rite in the case of the child without gender-signs, and for the woman it is performed without mantras in accordance with another text;—it is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 31 b);—in Hemādri (Pariśeṣa, p. 583), where‘Vardhana’ is explained as cutting; and again on p. 736, where the same is repeated;—in the same work (Śrāddha, p. 326);—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 831) to the effect that the rite is to be performed before the cutting of the umbilical cord;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 49) to the same effect; it reads ‘puruṣam’ for ‘puruṣaḥ

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 192) quotes it as laying down the exact time for the performance of the sacrament, in the first half,—and the form of the sacrament in the second half. It quotes it again (p. 403) in support of the view that Manu having prescribed the sacraments of Nāmakaraṇa, Niṣkramaṇa, Annaprāśana, Chuḍā, Upanayaṇa and Keśānta, for the male child,—adds a verse (2. 66) to the effect that ‘all this is to be done for the female child &c. &c.,—which makes it clear that the Upanayaṇa rite should be performed for the female child also; and the statement (in 2-67) that for women the ‘marriage’ constitutes the ‘upanayaṇa’ only provides a possible substitute for Upanayaṇa in the case of females.

This verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 171) as laying down the Jātakarma, and explains ‘vardhanaascutting.’

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Mahābhārata (Ājagara Parva., 3?).—(The first line of Manu repeated.)

Viṣṇu (Smṛti, 1.27.1).—‘On the birth of the child, the Jātakarma.’

Āśvalāyana (Gṛhyasūtrā, 15.1.3).—‘When the boy is born, before he has been touched by any other person, he should be made to eat, with a golden spoon, butter, honey and gold, with the mantra—‘Pra te dadhāmi, etc.’—‘The following mantra is to he recited into the ear of the child —medhānte devaḥ savitā, etc.’—‘The shoulders are touched with the mantra —Aśmā bhava’, etc.

Āṣhvalāyana (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 193).—‘The Jātakarma should be performed by the twice-born immediately on the birth of the child.’

Gobhila (Gṛhyasūtrā, 2.7.21).—‘Taking hold of the boy as soon as he is born, one should make an offering into his mouth, with the mantra Medhānte mitrāvaruṇau, etc.’

Āśvalāyana (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 191).—‘When the boy is born, the Father should perform the Jātakarma sacrament after having performed the Nāndī-śrāddha.’

Jābāli (Ibid).—‘Before the umbilical cord has been cut, the Śrāddha consequent on child-birth should be performed.’

Garga (Ibid).—‘The Jātakarma is prescribed as to be performed, as soon as the boy is born, before he is put to the mother’s breast, or before the umbilical cord has been cut.’

Śaṅkha (Parāśaramādhava, p. 110).—‘To all members of his family he shall give quadrupeds, grains, gold and other things.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Ibid).—‘On. birth, there is Jātakarma; and feeding of the child with barley-dour, honey, butter, by means of a golden spoon.’

Baijavāpa (Ibid).—‘As soon as the boy is born, before the cutting of the cord, he should be fed with water touched with gold, and also with curd, honey, butter.’

Viṣṇudarmottara (Parāśaramādhava, p. 440).—‘On the birth of the son, the Śrāddha should be performed before the cutting of the umbilical cord; or after the expiry of the period of impurity.’

Vyāsa (Do.)—‘When the man is away from home, or when his wife is in her courses, when he has no materials nor Brāh-niaṇas at hand, lie shall perform the Birth-śrāddha with gold.’

Samvārta (Paraśaramādhava, p. 439).—‘On the birth of the son, bathing with clothes on has been prescribed for the father.’

Ādityapurāṇa (Ibid, p. 410).—‘At the Birth-śrāddha one shall not offer cooked food to the Brāhmaṇas.’

Pāraskara (Ibid, p. 440).—‘When the boy is horn, before the cord is cut, one should perform rites tending to longevity and intelligence; uttering into his right ear, the word ‘Vāk’ and then his secret name.’

Brahmapurūṇa (Aparārka, p. 20) and Ādityapurāṇa, (Parāśaramādhava, p. 440).—‘Gods and Pitṛs come to the house of the twice-born whenever a son is born; therefore on that occasion, sacred rites should be performed; one should give away gold, land, cows and chariots, umbrellas, goats, garlands, sesamum, houses and much wealth, and after performing the śrāddha, he should offer cooked food to Brāhmaṇas.’

Hārīta (Do.)—‘On the birth of the son, the Pitṛs become delighted; hence that day is sacred; hence one should give away vessels full of sesamum, along with gold; and having invited Brāhmaṇas, one should make offerings to the Pitṛs; and prior to the cutting of the umbilical cord, they make

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: