Verse 3.194

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

मनोर्हैरण्यगर्भस्य ये मरीच्यादयः सुताः ।
तेषां ऋषीणां सर्वेषां पुत्राः पितृगणाः स्मृताः ॥ १९४ ॥

manorhairaṇyagarbhasya ye marīcyādayaḥ sutāḥ |
teṣāṃ ṛṣīṇāṃ sarveṣāṃ putrāḥ pitṛgaṇāḥ smṛtāḥ || 194 ||

Of Manu, the son of Hiraṇyagarbha, Marīci and the rest were sons; and the sons of all these sages have been declared to constitute the “Body of Pitṛs.”—(194)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Hiraṇyagarbha’ is Prajāpati; his son is ‘Manu, the son of Hiraṇyagarbha;’ as has been declared under Discourse I—‘Having created all this and myself, &c., &c.;’—of this Manu, the sons were ‘Marīci and the rest’—i.e., Atri, Aṅgiras, and so forth; and these constitute the ‘Body of Pitṛs,’ ‘Pitṛgaṇa.’

An objection is raised—“For every person, his own Father, &c., are his ‘Pitṛs.’ The injunctions also are in the words—‘one should offer balls to his father, grandfather and great-grandfather;’ ‘after this, the sons should make offerings to three ancestors.’ What then is this that is being said now—that ‘the sons oft he sages are the Pitṛs,’—or that ‘the Somapās are the Pitṛs of Brāhmaṇas?’ We cannot accept any such option as that—‘one shall make an offering to the Somapā

Pitṛs,’ or ‘he shall make the offering to his father and grandfather;’ for the simple reason that in the original injunction we find the words ‘this should be done by the son;’ and ‘son’ is a relative term; and later on (verse 221) we read—‘he whose father may be dead &c., &c.’ It has, therefore, got to be explained what is the real meaning of the present context,”

The answer to the above is as follows:—What the present verse contains is merely a commendatory description supplementary to the foregoing injunctions; and we never hear of the ‘Somapa’ and other Pitṛs spoken as the recipients of offerings.

“But there is the injunction (in 193) that these have to be worshipped.”

The root ‘chara’ (in ‘upacaryāḥ’) is denotative of mere action in general; and as such, it cannot form the subject of any injunction. In the Veda, we do not find any such action spoken of as ‘upacāra,’ in the same manner as the acts of sacrificing, giving and the like. In most cases, the root ‘chara’ is used, like the root ‘kṛ’ as pertaining to some other act mentioned in close proximity to it; and in the present case, the act mentioned in close proximity is that of offering the śrāddha. This latter act having been already enjoined as to be offered to a definite set of recipients, could not be again enjoined as to be offered to other recipients. If it were again the enjoined itself, then it would not be regarded as being in proximity to another enjoined act; and the presence of the root ‘chara’ distinctly precludes the possibility of any other act being understood, which is not in proximity to another enjoined act. As for such usages in ordinary parlance as ‘the Teacher should be worshipped,’ ‘guravaḥ upacaryāh’ (where we have the same term ‘upacaryāḥ’), there also the act that is understood to be expressed is service, in the form of washing the feet, and the like; and no such act as these is possible in connection with the Pitṛs, And so long as a passage is capable of being construed in a certain sense along with the context in which it occurs, there can be no justification for assuming another meaning for it. If the ‘Somapa’ and the rest had been really intended as the recepients of the Śrāddha offered by the several castes, then alone would there have been any use for the description of their birth, &c. (as found in the present verse). When, however, the verse is taken as a mere commendatory description, then any description might come in useful.

Hence, the conclusion is, that the present verse proceeds with a view to make those people undertake the performance of Śrāddha who may happen to have no regard for their ancestors, and hence having no inclination for doing any act on their behalf;—the purport being—‘do not you think that the Pitṛs being dead men, what harm could they do if they were not satisfied at the Śrāddha, or what good they could do by being satisfied?—because they are, in reality, beings of tremendous power, being the grandsons of Manu; who is the son of Hiraṇyagarbha, the lord of the whole universe.’ It is for conveying this sense that the text has used the term, ‘of the sages;’ which means that they are not ordinary sons of Manu; it is those great sages, Marīci and the rest, who are known as possessed of great powers; and it is of such sages that the Pitṛs are the sons.

There are many people who would be led to the performance of Śrāddhas, just by means of such laudatory descriptions.

Some people explain the verse to mean that “one should look upon the Pitṛs as Somapa and the rest.

These, however, have to be disregarded; as there is no authority for any such notion. We have no such assertion to this effect, as we have in connection with the propriety of looking at the sun as Brahman.

Others, again, have offered the explanation that, what is meant is, that the rule being that ‘offerings to the Pitṛs should be made after pronouncing their gotra and name,’ and ‘Somapā,’ &c., are just the names that have to be pronounced in connection with the several castes.

This also is not right; since the expression used is “somapā nāma,” ‘by name Somapā,’ these must be names, not gotras.

“But the term ‘name’ would be applicable also when these were names of gotras only.”

If these were the names of gotras, then the two could not be in apposition; the proper form would be, ‘Somapā is the gotra of the Pitṛs,’ and not that ‘the Pitṛs are Somapa.’

“It is often found that the descendant is identified with his gotra, and the name of the latter is applied to the former; e.g, in such expressions as ‘Babhru is Mandu.’”

Our answer to this is as follows:—It has to be considered here what is it that is called ‘gotra,’ As a matter of fact, the ‘gotra’ of a family is its first progenitor who imparts his name to it, being the most renowned person by virtue of his possessing such qualities as learning, opulence, bravery, nobility and the like; and it is after him that the family becomes named. Thus it is that among Brāhmaṇas and others, there are sub-divisious of gotras. The personage whom his descendants remember with such feelings as ‘we are the descendants of such and such a person,’ would thus be the one after which that particular family should be named. As a matter of fact, however, no men are found to think of themselves as being ‘Somapā’ and thus regarding

‘Somapā’ as the name of their gotra;—in the manner in which people regard the names of ‘Bhṛgu’, ‘Garga’ and

‘Gālaya.’ It is by these latter names that the gotras of Brāhmaṇas should be known; as these are the principal gotras; the name ‘gotra’ applying to them by convention, and not by virtue of their fulfilling the condition mentioned in the above-mentioned definition that ‘the first progenitor, imparting his name to the family, is its gotra;’ in fact, ‘Bhṛgu,’ &c., have been known as ‘gotra’ from beginningless time, and their use in this sense is as much without beginning as the use of the caste-names, ‘Brāhmaṇa,’ and the rest. Prior to Parāśara’s birth, no Brāhmaṇas could have been named after him; hence, if the ‘gotra’ consisted in the first progenitor, &c., then the Veda (which makes mention of Parāśara as gotra) would have a beginning in time. Thus, then, since the use of the name ‘gotra’ is beginningless, it is this ‘gotra’ that is to be used in the pouring of water-libations. The persons imparting their names to families are not beginningless; they are modern; and at a Vedic rite, so long as one can make use of eternal names, there can be no justification for pronouncing names that have had a beginning in time. For these reasons, what the Brāhmaṇa should do when offering the libation of water, &c„ is to pronounce the appropriate ‘gotra- name’—such as ‘may this offering go to the Gargya,’ or ‘to one belonging to the Garga-gotra’—and then pronounce the name of the person.

Among the Kṣatriya and the other castes, however, there is no such usage regarding gotra. These latter do not retain the memory of their ‘gotra’ in the same manner as the Brāhmaṇas do. Hence, for them, the ‘gotra’ must be something pertaining to this world; and it is for these that the ‘gotra’ consists of the ‘first progenitor, the most renowned, who imparts his name to the family:’ hence it is that they are referred to in Śrāddha, etc., by this gotra-name, even though it is one that has had a beginning in time. These, Kṣatriya, etc., are not worthy of being called by such titles as ‘Havirbhuk,’ and the like.

Some people have held that—“the offerings enjoined as to be made with such expressions as ‘I am inviting the Somapās,’ ‘may this reach the Somapās,’ and the like, are by those persons, the names of whose father and other ancestors are unknown.”

This also is not right; as it has been distinctly laid down that ‘one not knowing the names of one’s ancestors should make the offerings simply with the words to the father, to the grandfather, and so forth.’

Further, there might be some justification for having recourse to the several explanations of this verse, only if it were absolutely impossible to construe it as serving the purposes of a commendatory description supplementary to the foregoing injunction. But so long as it is possible to construe the verse along with what has gone before, it cannot be right to take it as an isolated assertion by itself.—(194)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 43).