Verse 5.124

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

यावन्नापेत्यमेध्याक्ताद् गन्धो लेपश्च तत्कृतः ।
तावन् मृद्वारि चादेयं सर्वासु द्रव्यशुद्धिषु ॥ १२४ ॥

yāvannāpetyamedhyāktād gandho lepaśca tatkṛtaḥ |
tāvan mṛdvāri cādeyaṃ sarvāsu dravyaśuddhiṣu || 124 ||

From an object tainted by an unclean substance, as long as the smell and the stain caused by it do not disappear, so long should earth and water be applied to it,—in all cases of the purification of things.—(124).

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Unclean’—Untouchable.

“If that be so, then what is not eatable by the person concerned, that alone will be a source of contamination for him; e g., wine and spirit would be^‘unclean’ for the Brāhmaṇa, but not for the Śūdra.”

This is not right; because substances intended as offering-materials at a sacrifice are ‘not eatable’, before the offerings have been made; and yet they are not^‘untouchable As for wines and spirits, even the touching of these has been prohibited, for the Brāhmaṇa. So that that thing may be regarded as a source of contamination for a man the touching of which has been prohibited for him. So that what is true is, not^‘what is not eatable is untouchable,’ but that ‘what is untouchable is not eatable.’

‘Tainted’—besmeared; contaminated.

‘So long’,—this prescribes repetition of the act.

‘Earth and water’;—all this to be is used only if there is need for it; and the need would consist in the removing of the smell and stain. So that in the case of the touch of such unclean things as are dry, or in the case of the contamination having

taken place long ago,—since the smell and stain would have been removed by the lapse of time,—washing with earth and water should have to be done once only.

“The use of earth and water is for a visible purpose,—since it is only by their use that the stain is removed and the thing is purified; what then is the use of the phrace ‘as long as &c.’?”

The explanation is as follows:—The qualifying phrase has been added with a view to exceeding the restricted number of applications, specifically laid down in such texts as —‘ once to the urinary organ, thrice to the anus &c, &c.’ (3.448); the sense being that if the removal of the stain &c., of the excretions be found to be impossible by the restricted number of applications, the said restrictions are to be ignored and more applications used. All that the mention of the exact, number of applications means is that even if the smell and stain be removed by a less number of applications, the prescribed number must be made up.

‘Earth and water’ have been mentioned only as indicating things that may be used as a means of purification. Hence even though the contaminating substance may have been washed off by water, yet it should be rubbed with saline substances, so that not a trace of the substance may he visible.

‘Disappear’—go off, cease.

‘Caused by it’—caused by the unclean substance. Hence there would be no contamination if the smell of such substances as musk and the like did not disappear from clothing &c. But in the case of a thing painted with kuṅkuma and such substances, if any portion of it should happen to be contaminated by an unclean thing, then the kuṅkuma also has to be removed from that portion; and this for the simple reason that the kuṅkuma also is in contact with the unclean thing; specially there also the^‘smell and taint’ are present. If however the colour of kuṅkuma happens to be attached to one’s body, and it cannot be removed by rubbing, then purification may be attained (even by the use of earth and water).—(124).

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

(Verse 126 of others.)

This verse has been quoted in Aparārka (p. 36);—in Mitākṣarā (on 1.185) as laying down purification in general;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 47);—in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 44) as laying down ‘the removal of smell and stains’ as the purpose of ‘purification’;—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 217);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 148), which deduces the conclusion that the article is to be regarded as pure so long as the ‘defilement’, though present, has not been detected,—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 818);—in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 102);—in Ācāramayūkha (p. 13);—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 266);—and in Yatidharmasaṅgraha (p. 52).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Gautama (1.42).—‘Purification from defilement by unclean substances has been effected when the stains and the smell have been removed.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.48).—‘Anything defiled by unclean substances becomes pure when the stains and the smell have been removed by water and earth.’

Yājñavalkya (1.191).—‘Of things smeared with unclean things, purification is secured by removing the smell by earth and water.’

Devala (Aparārka, p. 270).—‘When there is defilement, the removal of the stain, the grease and the smell, by means of earth, water, cowdung and such things, constitutes purification.’

Viṣṇu (23.39).—‘As long as the smell or moisture caused by any unclean substance remains on the defiled object, so long must earth and water be constantly applied, in all purifications of inanimate things.’