Verse 2.64

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

मेखलामजिनं दण्डमुपवीतं कमण्डलुम् ।
अप्सु प्रास्य विनष्टानि गृह्णीतान्यानि मन्त्रवत् ॥ ६४ ॥

mekhalāmajinaṃ daṇḍamupavītaṃ kamaṇḍalum |
apsu prāsya vinaṣṭāni gṛhṇītānyāni mantravat || 64 ||

When the girdle, the skin, the staff, the sacred thread or the water-pot becomes damaged, he should throw it into the water and take up another with the proper formulas.—(64)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verse enjoins that when these things are damaged, they should be thrown into water and others should be taken up; and the sequence of the ‘throwing’ and the ‘taking up’ is to be just as it is found in the text. In as much as one has got to take up these things again, they cannot be regarded as forming part of the Initiatory Ceremony itself; if it were part of this ceremony, then all their purpose would have been fulfilled by the completion of the ceremony. The right view therefore is that these should continue to be taken up throughout the ‘student-stage.’

“But is it not possible to regard the throwing into water here laid down as the disposal of the things mentioned, if they happen, during the Initiatory Ceremony—and before its completion,—to be damaged by divine or human adverse forces? The taking up of fresh ones, would, in this case, be necessary for the completion of the ceremony; just as there is of the begging-bowl. Is it absolutely impossible for the text to be taken in this manner, that the mere fact of the re-taking being laid down should be made the basis of assuming that the things should continue to be held throughout the student-stage?”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—As for mere ‘holding,’ this has been laid down in connection with the staff only (during the Initiatory Rite); as for the girdle what is to be done during the ceremony is only its tying (round the waist); so that what should be done as part of the Initiatory Ceremony is the peculiar arrangement of strings (which constitutes the act of tying); this being done, the purpose of the Injunction will have been fulfilled; so that if, at some future time, any thing becomes damaged or not, what effect could that have upon the ceremony (which will have been long completed)? As for the particular form of ‘disposal,’ this helps the Rite only when what has become damaged forms an integral part of the Rite itself. Nor again have the scriptures laid down any purpose for which the girdle, etc., are worn, for the fulfilment of which purpose, the re-taking of them (during the ceremony) would be enjoined (in the present text); it is only when the purpose of a certain object has not been fulfilled, that we take it for granted that that object should be taken up again. For these reasons, because the text lays down (a) a particular form of Disposal, and (b) the re-taking of the things, we conclude that, even though the holding of these may form an integral part of the Initiatory Ceremony, the necessity of this holding does not end with the completion of the ceremony. Then again, the girdle, etc., are mentioned in the same category as the ‘water-pot,’ which continues to be held after the ceremony also; and this shows that the other articles also are to continue to be held, and all this ‘holding’ forms part of the observances (of the Religious Student). From all this it follows that the girdle and other things are subservient to both: by the force of ‘context,’ they form part of the Initiatory Ceremony, and since they are found to be held after the completion of that ceremony, they are to continue as long as the ‘student-stage’ lasts. That the ‘water-pot’ has to be carried (always) for the purpose of carrying water is also implied by (the binding and universal character of) the injunction of the ‘Disposal’; otherwise (if the pot were not meant to be carried always), the meaning of the injunction would be that the disposal is to be carried out only when the water-pot may be held; and this would make the Injunction partial and limited in its application.

As regards the ‘holding of the staff,’ this comes to be regarded as part of the ‘begging of food,’ on the basis of sequence enjoined in the rule ‘one should beg for food after taking up the staff’, but on the basis of actual practice, it comes to be done in connection with such ordinary talking also as is not done for the purpose of ‘food-begging.’ But it does not mean that the staff should be held always; for the boy who may be holding the stick would be unable to do such acts as standing, sitting, sleeping, eating and so forth; similarly in Verse 2.70 it is laid down that the boy, when proceeding to read the Veda, should sit with joined palms (and this would not be possible if he held the staff in his hand).

‘With the proper formulas’—this means that the retaking of the articles should be in the same manner in which they are taken up during the Initiatory Ceremony; and in that connection formulas are laid down in regard to the wearing of the Girdle, and not in regard to the holding of the staff.—(64)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 451), which says that it lays down the method of disposing of the sacred thread and other things whenever they happen to break;—also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 190).

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 934) which says that, as the use of mantras is essential, if a certain Gṛhyasūtra does not mention the mantra, it has to be borrowed from another Gṛhyasūtra;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 423), where also the verse is explained as laying down the ‘disposal’ of the tilings mentioned. The latter quotes the verse again on p. 887, where it is explained that in a case where an injunction lays down a certain act as to be done ‘with the proper mantras’—as is done in the present verse—and no particular mantra is prescribed? one has to use the mantra that may be found mentioned in a particular Gṛhyasūtra. This is what ‘mantravat’ has beeif explained to mean, in Madanapārijāta (p. 37 also.)

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra,, p. 85) as laying down the disposal of the sacred thread that has been worn out;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 39), which notes that the meaning of the term ‘mantravat’ is that they have to be worn with those same mantras that were used for wearing them at the Upanayana;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 72) as an example of the principle that where the text laying down a certain act as to be done ‘with mantras’ does not specify the particular mantras to be used, these have to be taken as laid down in other Gṛhyasūtras.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.29.—[Reproduces the exact words of Manu.]

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 4.5-7.—‘When these articles become spoilt by urine, excreta, blood or semen, they should be thrown away; when the water-pot breaks, one should offer a hundred libations with the Vyāhrti mantras; the pieces he should throw into the water, and repeating the Sāvitrī ten times, he should take up another pot.’

Bhṛgu (Vīra-Samskāra, p. 423).—‘When the sacred thread is torn or broken, the Brāhmaṇa should bathe and then wear a new one.’