by Hermann Oldenberg | 1886 | 37,785 words

The Grihya-sutra ascribed to Shankhayana, which has been edited and translated into German in the XVth volume of the "Indische Studien", is based on the first of the four Vedas, the Rig-veda in the Bashkala recension, and among the Brahmana texts, on the Kaushitaka. Alternative titles: Śāṅkhāyana-gṛhya-sūtra (शाङ्खायन-गृह्य-सूत्र), Shank...

Adhyāya IV, Khaṇḍa 3

1[1]. Now (follows) the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa (i.e. reception of a dead person into the community of Piṇḍa-offerings with the other Manes).

2[2]. When one year has elapsed, or three half-months,

3. Or on a day when something good happens,

4. He fills four water-pots with sesamum, scents, and water,

5. Three for the fathers, one for the (newly) dead person,

6. And pours the pot that belongs to the (newly) dead person out into the pots of the fathers with the two verses, 'They who commonly' (Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā XIX, 45. 46).

7. Thus also the lump (of flour).

8. This is the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa.

Footnotes and references:


3, 1. It appears to me that this whole chapter is a later addition to the original text. The last Sūtra of the preceding chapter, treating of the omission of the fourth 'father,' which forms, as shown in the preceding note, a consequence of the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa, p. 110 supposes this ceremony to be known and to require no special explanation. Had the intention of the author been to treat of the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa, this would have been the right place for mentioning the caturthavisarga, and not, as we really read it, the end of the chapter treating of the Ekoddiṣṭa. As pointing in the same direction I will mention that the Śāmbavya-Gṛhya, while giving the first, second, and fourth chapter of this Adhyāya, omits the third. Finally it seems decisive to me that the fifth (Pariśiṣṭa) book of the Śāṅkhāyana-Gṛhya treats of the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa in a whole chapter (V, 9), which shows that the text itself, as the author of the Pariśiṣṭa read it, gave no exposition of this ceremony.


Nārāyaṇa says that tripakṣa means either three pakṣas, i.e. one month and a half, or one pakṣa deficient by three days, i.e. twelve days. We need not say that the latter explanation is inadmissible it evidently rests on a wrong conclusion drawn from a passage of another Sūtra quoted by him, in which it is stated that the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa should be performed saṃvatsarānte dvādaśāhe vā.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: