Verse 2.78

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

एतदक्षरमेतां च जपन् व्याहृतिपूर्विकाम् ।
सन्ध्ययोर्वेदविद् विप्रो वेदपुण्येन युज्यते ॥ ७८ ॥

etadakṣarametāṃ ca japan vyāhṛtipūrvikām |
sandhyayorvedavid vipro vedapuṇyena yujyate || 78 ||

Reciting, at the two twilights, this syllable and this verse, preceded by the Vyāhṛtis, the Brāhmaṇa, learned in the Veda, becomes endowed with Vedic merit.—(78)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though this verse is syntactically connected with the section dealing with the Injunction of Vedic study, yet it is to be taken as embodying the injunction of recitation during the Twilight-Prayers; and as regards the ‘Gāyatrī’-verse itself, the mention of it (in the present verse) is merely for the purposes of reference (the injunction of its recitation having already gone before), while that of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis forms the direct injunction of the recitation of these, which has not been enjoined anywhere else.

To this some people make the following objection:—

“This cannot be regarded as an Injunction pertaining to the Twilight Prayers; as these do not form the subject-matter of the present context. Even if it was an injunction, it could only be one pertaining to the Religious Student; as it is the Student whose duties are being propounded in the present context. But this is not possible, since the text has added the qualification ‘learned in the Veda’; and certainly the student just initiated could never be ‘learned in the Veda.’ Further, the text also adds a particular fruit—‘becomes endowed with Vedic merit’; while the Injunction of the Twilight-Prayers is a compulsory one. Then again, we do not understand what is this fruit, called ‘Vedic merit’ which is described as proceeding from the recitation. If what is meant is the merit proceeding from the recitation of the Veda, and if the attaining of this merit is what is meant by being ‘endowed with Vedic merit’—then, in regard to this view it has to be noted that so far as the Injunction of Veda-reciting is concerned—which forms the subject-matter of the present context,—there can be no other result proceeding from it, except the understanding of the meaning of tho Vedic texts; for the simple reason that no such result has been anywhere mentioned. Further, in as much as there is a perceptible result in the shape of the comprehension of meaning, there can be no room for the assuming of any other results. The injunction of Veda-reciting that there is for the Householder and others,—in the words ‘day after day one should recite the Veda’—this also is a compulsory one; and the results mentioned in connection with it, in the shape of ‘milk, and honey, etc.,’ this is only a valedictory supplement. From all this it is clear that the present verse cannot be regarded as an Injunction (of recitation during the Twilight Prayers). Specially as, if it were taken as an Injunction, all the above difficulties will have to be explained. On the other band, if the verse be taken as a valedictory reference, then the term ‘reciting’ could be taken as referring to the Reciting of the Veda, which forms the subject-matter of the context; and in that case it would be possible to construe the term ‘Vedic merit’ also in some way or the other.”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—

It has been already explained that the implications of context are always set aside by those of Syntactical Connection; and for the very reason that the terms ‘learned in the Veda’ and ‘Twilight prayers’ are not connected with the subject-matter of the context,—the present Injunction is to be taken as pertaining to something else. The Injunction is simply to the effect that during the two Twilight Prayers one should pronounce the three expressions (Om—Sāvitrī verse—Vyāhṛtis); and the term ‘learned in the Veda’ is merely descriptive?

“But as a matter of fact, it is possible only for persons in the Householder and other stages to be ‘learned in the Veda’; the Student can never be so.

What has this possibility got to do with the matter? If the term is taken as merely descriptive of what is already known from other sources, then the injunction contained in the verse becomes applicable to people in all stages of life. While if the term ‘learned in the Veda’ were taken as a significant epithet of the Nominative agent (of the act enjoined), then the student would not be entitled to the act.

“Why should the term be taken as merely descriptive?”

For the simple reason that there would (otherwise) be a syntactical split. The injunction pertaining to the Injunction of the Twilight Prayers, what has to be enjoined regarding it is the reciting of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis, which has not been enjoined anywhere else, Now, if in addition to these, something else were taken as enjoined,—in the form of ‘being learned in the Veda,’—then there would be a syntactical split [the sentence in question containing two injunctions, (a) ‘should recite the Praṇava, etc.,’ and (b) ‘should learn the Veda’]; and it is not legitimate to enjoin (by means of a single sentence) several details pertaining to an act already enjoined. Nor is it possible (as another alternative) to take the mention of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis as merely descriptive [because their injunction has not been met with anywhere else].

From all this it follows that what the Text means is as follows:—‘In connection with the reciting of the Gāyatrī that has been enjoined in relation to the Twilight Prayers, there is this further detail that the said recitation is to lie preceded by the uttering of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis.’

The mention of the ‘Brāhmaṇa' is only by way of illustration.

It has been argued above that—“the text speaks of a result, while the Injunction of the Twilight Prayers is a compulsory one.”

But what inconsistency is there in this? While what is enjoined is a compulsory act, the result mentioned may follow from the further detail mentioned in the text; the meaning being that ‘the said result follows from the previously enjoined Twilight Prayer, when it is accompanied by the recitation of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis. Just as when the ordinary Agnihotra is performed with the water brought over in the milking vessel, there comes about the particular result in the shape of cattle; and this in (?) accordance with the injunction that ‘for one desiring cattle water should be brought in the milking vessel.’

It is on the strength of this last injunction that we have made bold to say what we have said above. In reality the injunction contained in the verse is not an optional one at all (meant only for those desiring the particular result mentioned). Specially as another Smṛti (Yājñavalkya, 1. 23) clearly lays it down as a compulsory injunction—‘One should recite the Gāyatrī along with the Śiras, preceded by the Vyāhṛtis.’

Further, you have yourself argued that the exact nature of the result (‘Vedic merit’) cannot be ascertained (which is an argument against the text being taken as laying down a result). As a matter of fact, what ‘Vedic merit’ means is as follows:—‘The merit that has been described in the Veda as resulting from the saying of the Twilight Prayers accrues to man only when he recites all the three expressions—and not by reciting the Gāyatrī only.’ ‘Puṇya,’ ‘merit,’ is excellence. Since Smṛtis are based upon the Veda, what is mentioned in the Smṛtis is also called ‘Veda-merit,’ which last expression stands for the ‘merit of the Veda.’

“What is the merit of the Veda?”

That (merit) which is expounded by the Veda. The merit that results from the Veda being recited may also be called ‘the merit of the Veda’; but by virtue of the specific relationship, it is what is expounded by the Veda,—and what is produced by it—that should be spoken of as ‘merit of the Veda.’ As for the producing of merit, this is done by other things also, such as sacrificial performances and the like; while the expounding of it is done by the Veda only.

Some people have taken the last foot of the Verse to mean as follows—“What has been enjoined as compulsory Vedic Study becomes fulfilled merely by reciting the three expressions during the Twilight Prayers.”

But this is not right. For if the present text meant this, then it would be providing an option to what has been laid down as the compulsory ‘Vedic Study’; and this would mean the partial rejection of this study. But so long as we can avoid it, it is not right to admit the rejection of any injunction.

‘This syllable’—refers to the syllable ‘oṃ.’

“But this is not a single letter, containing as it does, two or three syllables.”

Our answer is that the term ‘syllable’ here stands for ‘vowel-sound’ and ‘contact with consonants.’ Hence the term denotes that which forms the subject-matter of the context.

‘This Verse’—i.e., the Sāvitrī verse ‘tat saviturvareṇyam, etc.’

‘Preceded by the Vyāhṛtis;’—i.e., that before which the Vyāhṛtis have been uttered. Here only the three Vyāhṛtis are meant,—these alone having been mentioned in the present context (in verse 76),—and not the seven, ending with ‘Satyam.’

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Medhātithi (P.111,1.11)—Prāpte hi karmaṇi, &c.’—This is a paraphrase of Kumārila’s dictum—

prāpte karmaṇi nāneko vidhātuṃ śakyate guṇaḥ |
aprāpte tu vidhīyante vahavo'pyekapatnataḥ |

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 50), which explains ‘etadakṣaram’ as the Praṇava;—and in Nityāchārapaddhati, (p. 189).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(Verses 78-79)

Śaṅkha (Aparārka, p. 1220).—‘The Brāhmaṇa stealing gold, or killing a Brāhmaṇa, or violating the teacher’s bed, or drinking wine, becomes absolved from the sin by repeating the Gāyatrī a lakh of times.’

Hārīta (Do.).—‘The syllable om, the Vyāhṛtis and the Sāvitrī constitute the Sāvitra Pavitra, by which one becomes absolved from all sins; by repeating it a hundred times he becomes purified in a month; repeating it ten thousand times he has his soul entirely purified of all sins.’

Viṣṇusmṛti, 55.12—[reproduces the words of Manu].

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 4.6.—‘They declare that seated on kuśa-grass, holding kuśa-blades and water in the hand, he should repeat the Gāyatrī a thousand times.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 2.29.—‘Breath-suspensions, accompanied by the Vyāhṛtis and the Praṇava, repeated sixteen times daily, purify even the embryo-murderer, in a month’s time.’

Vasiṣṭha-smṛti, 36-5 [reproduces the foregoing text of Baudhāyana].

Vasiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 1220).—‘On the commingling of all kinds of sin, the best purification consists in repeating the Gāyatrī ten thousand times.’

Nṛsiṃhapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, pp. 254-255).—‘Having offered the Evening Prayers, while the sun is still visible, he should go on repeating the Gāyatrī till the stars become visible.’