Verse 3.120

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

राजा च श्रोत्रियश्चैव यज्ञकर्मण्युपस्थितौ ।
मधुपर्केण सम्पूज्यौ न त्वयज्ञ इति स्थितिः ॥ १२० ॥

rājā ca śrotriyaścaiva yajñakarmaṇyupasthitau |
madhuparkeṇa sampūjyau na tvayajña iti sthitiḥ || 120 ||

The king and the Learned Man should be honoured with the Honey-mixture, at the approach of a sacrificial performance,—not if there is no sacrifice (going to be performed).—(120)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Some people hold that this verse serves to prescribe the honouring even before the lapse of a year, if the persons happen to Arrive in connection with a sacrifical peformance. Others, however, take it as completing what has been said in the preceding verse; and if it be not taken in this sense, then the statement ‘not if there is no sacrifice’ remains inexplicable.

The term ‘learned man’ here may be taken as standing either for the person spoken of above as ‘accomplished student,’ or for the Priest; it is for the latter that the offering of ‘Honey-mixture,’ when the sacrifice is going to be performed, has been laid down. Though one would perform the Soma-sacrifice several times during the year, yet the Priests would help in the performance only if they have been duly honoured. Thus it is only if taken in this sense that the text comes to have a well-established basis (in the Veda). In any other sense, it will have to have its basis assumed.

Others, however, take the term ‘learned man’ as referring to the Priest and all the rest of them (mentioned in the preceding verse). In fact, Gautama has said this in a general way: Having said that ‘the honey-mixture is to be offered in the reception of the priest, the father-in-law, the paternal uncle and the maternal uncle, (5-25), he says ‘before the sacrifice and the marriage’ (5.27). And from this it is clear that at the time that a sacrifice is going to be performed, all those who deserve to be honoured should be honoured even before the lapse of the year.

‘Not if there is no sacrifice;’—this prohibition applies to the honouring before t he year is over, and not that which comes after it.

In connection with the second foot of the verse, there are several readings:

Some people read ‘tate yajñe upasthitau,’ ‘who arrive when a sacrifice has commenced;’ and they explain this to mean that ‘the honey-mixture’ is to be offered to them only if they come, by invitation, when the performance of the sacrifice has commenced, and not when it is only going to be commenced.

This view is objected to by some persous: In view of the general rule that ‘the person initiated for sacrifice should not offer anything,’ all offering is prohibited for the initiated sacrificer; so that, if the offering of honey-mixture were now permitted, this would be contrary to the said general rule. It will not be right to argue (in answer to this that—“this is not an offering, since the injunction is that he should honour them, so that it is honouring that is enjoined;” because in the rite of the ‘Honey-mixture, ‘there is an actual offering of curd, as also of meat and food. If it be said that “the man eats what belongs to another person (without the latter offering it),”—in that case, the act would involve the sin of theft. It may be argued that, “in view of the direct assertion permitting such an act, it could not be regarded as theft.” But in that case, the act of giving is there; in fact, th e giving or offering also is actually enjoined in such texts as ‘should offer the honey-mixture.’ Hence the act would be contrary to law. “The offering would be contrary to the law that ‘the Initiated Sacrificer should not offer anything,’ only if the term ‘Sacrifice’ always stood for the Soma-sacrifice (in connection with which we have the said prohibition); as a matter of fact, however, the terra stands for the Darśa- Pūrṇamāsa sacrifices also; and the present injunction may be taken as pertaining to these latter.” This also will not be right; as, in this case, it will be contrary to usage: as a matter of fact, cultured people do not offer the Honey-mixture to honoured persons at any other sacrifice except the Soma-sacrifice; and Usage always follows the Veda.

For all these reasons, the right reading is ‘yajñakarmaṇyupasthite’ (as we have explained already). As a matter of fact, it is only when an honoured person arrives when the sacrificial performance is going to commence that cultured persons receive him with the Honey-mixture; and not after the performance has commenced. For this reason we do not even stop to consider the point that the prohibition (of offering by the Initiated Person) pertains to the act of giving in general, and not to that act of offering or giving which has been enjoined in connection with the sacrifice itself.

The compound ‘yajñakarma’ is to be expounded as the Karmadhāraya compound: when this performance is approaching—going to be performed.—(120)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

“According to one opinion, given by Medhātithi, and according to Govindarāja, Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa, this rule is a limitation of verse 119, and means that the two persons mentioned shall not receive the ‘Honey-mixture,’ except when they come dining the performance of a sacrifice, however long a period may have elapsed since their last visit—According to another explanation, mentioned by Medhātithi, and according to Nandaṇa and Rāghavānanda, the verse means that a King and a Śrotriya, who come, after a year since their last visit on the occasion of a sacrifice, shall receive the Madhuparka.—The term ‘Śrotriya’ refers, according to Medhātithi, to a Snātaka or to an officiating priest;—according to ‘others’ quoted by him, to all the persons mentioned in the preceding verse;—according to Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda, to a Snātaka.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 455) in support of the view that Madhuparka is to be offered to a King only if he is also a ‘Śrotriya,’ ‘learned in the Veda’, not otherwise;—‘Śrotriyaḥ’ being taken as qualifying ‘rājā.’—It is difficult to see how the writer will construe the term ‘Sampūjyau’ (in the dual number).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 3.119-120)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.119.