Verse 3.212

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

अग्न्यभावे तु विप्रस्य पाणावेवोपपादयेत् ।
यो ह्यग्निः स द्विजो विप्रैर्मन्त्रदर्शिभिरुच्यते ॥ २१२ ॥

agnyabhāve tu viprasya pāṇāvevopapādayet |
yo hyagniḥ sa dvijo viprairmantradarśibhirucyate || 212 ||

In the absence of Fire, he shall make the offering into the Brāhmaṇa’s hand; for it has been declared by the Brāhmaṇa seers of Vedic texts that what the Fire is, that same is the Brāhmaṇa.—(212).

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present text lays down an injunction in connection with those cases where there is no fire, i.e., neither one set up according to ‘smārta’ rites, nor that kindled at marriage, nor that set up after succession. As for the ordinary fire, since sacrificing to the Pitṛs in such fire has been prohibited, there need be no consideration of the presence or absence of such fire. It is going to be said later on (verse 282) that—‘oblations in connection with the offering to the Pitṛs should not be offered in the ordinary fire.’

Question—“How can there be any possibility of the said Fire being absent?”

Answer—It has been laid down that when a man is away from home and without his Fire, if he happen to come by a desirable place, the proper materials and the right type of Brāhmaṇas, he shall regard this as a suitable opportunity for offering Śrāddha; and it is not that the moonless day is the only one on which Śrāddha is to be performed. Hence the present rule is meant for the man who, when out on a journey, comes by a ‘sanctifier of company,’ or finds such suitable materials as the ‘Kālaśāka,’ and the like.

“How can one away from home be entitled to the performance of Śrāddhas? If the wife is also with him, away from home, then the Fire also should be with them; since it is not considered desirable for the Fire to be separated from both the sacrificer and his wife. It has been declared that—‘for people away from home, the Fire shall not be separated.’ If the Householder should happen to go out alone, then there may be ‘absence of Fire;’ but the man is entitled to make offerings only when associated with his wife; so that, when the wife is not near him, her acquiescence being not available, how could there be any possibility of the man making use of materials belonging to both? In the case of a material belonging to both, there can be no giving away, in the absence of the desire of either party. Against this it might be argued that—‘by the line of reasoning just put forward, it would be impossible to perform Śrāddhas in sacred places (during pilgrimages); and such non-performance would be contrary to such declarations as—‘at Puṣkara the Śrāddha is inexhaustible, austerity is highly meritorious; the same is to be held regarding the Ocean and Prabhāsa.’ There is no force in this; as such performance would be quite possible for the man who has set up the Fire, when he goes out on pilgrimage along with his wife. In the case in question, however, since the man would be journeying with his wife, the Fire could not be absent. If, however, the man he journeying alone, then, since he would be ignorant of his wife’s wishes in the matter, he could not be entitled to the performance.”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—When a man is proceeding on a journey, he seeks his wife’s permission in the following words—‘I shall be spending our belongings over religious performances;’ and having obtained this permission, he could be entitled to the performance of Śrāddhas.

Or, the rule laid down in the present text might pertain to boys before their initiation, at which time the Fire has not been set up; and the uninitiated boy also is entitled to the performance of Śrāddha, as has been shown under the text where it has been declared that the boy is not entitled to any rite, except the offering of Śrāddhas. Further, for the Accomplished Student also, if his father happens to die before his marriage, there would be ‘absence of fire.’

“In the Kāṭhaka, it is found stated that, on the death of the master of the house, fire should be set up (by his successor),”

This should be taken as applying to one who has married, and not to one who has merely just completed his studies. Two points of time have been laid down for the setting up of the ‘Smārta’ Fire—on marriage and on succession. So that, if one has not set up the Fire on marriage,—either because he does not set up a separate household apart from his father, or because he continues to live with his elder brother, according to the law that ‘for brothers that have not separated there is a common religious rite,’—for such a person, there is the other point of time, on succession, according to the injunction—‘or, from the time of succession;’ and the ‘time of succession’ is just the time when the Father dies. And it is to such cases that the following declarations apply,—‘having become pure, one should make offerings to the Pitṛs,’ ‘one should bring fire from the fryer’s pan and then keep vigil,’ and so forth. The setting up of the Fire mentioned in these texts (referring to the Fire kindled for the day only) could not be regarded as an essential factor in Śrāddha; for, if it were so, then, before the kindling of this Fire, since the Fire would not be there, no Śrāddha could be performed. Nor, again, is it possible that such a fire (set up for a temporary purpose) should not be abandoned. It has been declared that ‘this is the Aupasada Fire, in which the culinary offerings have to be made;’ and to the culinary offerings also a man without a wife is not entitled; because of such injunctions as ‘the butter is examined by the wife,’ ‘the wife should keep the observances,’ and so forth. It will not be right to argue that—“this keeping of observances and the examining of the butter are meant to apply to cases where the wife is present;”—because both these acts have been enjoined as entirely obligatory. Hence the meaning comes to be that libations are to be poured into the ‘Aupasada’ fire.

“The father’s death is not the precise time of succession; since it has been declared that the sons shall divide the property, after having performed the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa Śrāddha (which is done one year after death).”

The time herein mentioned is that for division, nut succession. In fact, for division also there is no such absolute rule that it must be done after the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa; as it has been declared that ‘separation among brothers is in view of religious rites;’ and the act of separation becomes ‘religious,’ when the members separating severally perform Śrāddhas and entertain guests, and so forth. Nor will it be right to argue that such assertions as ‘the sons shall offer the nine Śrāddhas conjointly’—refers to persons who have finished their studies. Because it may be that a man, having acquired only a little learning, marries a wife with a view to guard himself against transgressing the rule of having intercourse with one’s own wife, to which he would be prone by excess of sexual desire; but having married, be might devote greater attention to the studies he had begun, and thus complete his studies within a year, And it is with reference to such cases that we have the rule regarding the sons dividing their property after having performed the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa.

Then again, when a man has lost a wife and is going to marry another, till he has married again, there would be ‘absence of fire.’ Specially because, in view of the general law that ‘one should make sacrificial offerings in the company of his wife,’ which shows that there can be no setting up of fire for one who has not married.

Such being the case, when Fire is absent, one should place the oblations in the hands of the Brāhmaṇa—“Of which Brāhmaṇa?”—Of one of those that have been invited; either of one who has been invited in honour of the gods, or of some other invited Brāhmaṇa.

As a laudatory description, we have the words—‘what the Fire is, &c.’

This is the opinion of those ‘seers of mantras’ who know their meanings.—(212).

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Medhātithi (P. 274, l. 19)—‘Dvau hi kālau etc.’—See Gautama 5. 7—‘Bhāryādiragnirdāyādirvā.’

The first half of this verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 581) as laying down the offering of Homa into the hand of the Brāhmaṇa. In this connection it enters into a long discussion. The text speaks of the ‘absence of fire the ‘fire’ meant here must be the Śrauta and Gṛhya fires. Absence again is of three kinds: ‘previous absence,’ ‘destruction,’ and ‘absolute absence there is ‘previous absence’ of fire prior to one’s entering the ‘Household’;—after the man has entered the Household, if the fire goes out, either through carelessness, or through the break up of the Household, there is ‘destruction’ of fire, which can be resusciated by being set up again, or by the resumption of the Household;—there is ‘absolute absence’ of fire in the case of the Life-long Student, who never marries, and therefore never sets up either the Śrauta (Sacrificial) or the Gṛhya (Domestic) fire. It is only in the case of the first two kinds of ‘absence’ of the

Sacrificial and Domestic fires, that it being impossible to set up the Fire at the time of offering the Śrāddha, the Homa should be offered into the hands and such other receptacles as have been prescribed.—Some people have held that Homa can be offered into the ordinary fire also; but according to this view there could be no ‘absence of fire,’ as the ordinary fire can always be set up without difficulty; so that there would be no occasion for advantage being taken of the permission to offer the Homa into the hand or other receptacles; and this would render the present text, and others similar to it, entirely futile. All this points to the conclusion that the Homa at Śrāddha should never be offered into the ordinary fire.

Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 739) quotes this half of the verse, and remarks that it refers only to the case of the Homas offered by a Student

It is quoted also in Mitākṣarā (on 1.237) in support of the view that the offering of Homa into the hand is meant to apply only to the Case—(1) of the Śrāddhas prescribed for the purpose of attaining a definite end, such as the one laid down to be performed under such lunar asterisms as Kṛttikā and the rest, for the purpose of attaining heaven,—(2) of the Ābhyudayika Śrāddha laid down to be performed on the occasion of the son’s marriage and such other ceremonies,—(3) of the Aṣṭakā Śrāddha, laid down to be performed on the eighth day of the month,—and (4) of the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa Śrāddha.

The first half of the verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 316).

The whole verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1337), which has the following ṅotes:—The second line is a Hetuvannigada Arthavāda, the Brāhanaṇa being eulogised as serving the same purposes as the fire into which libations are poured,—‘mantradarśibhiḥ’, ‘by those learned in the Veda.’

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.8.5-6).—‘If permitted, then, it may be offered into the hands; Agni being the mouth of the Gods and the hand being the mouth of the Pitṛs,—so says the Brāhmaṇa-text.’

Jātūkarṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 739).—‘In the absence of the fire, it should be offered into the right hand of the Brāhmaṇa. That is regarded as the period of absence of fire while one has not taken to a wife,’

Gṛhyakāra (Parāśaramādhava, p. 739).—‘The Anvaṣṭakā, the monthly Pārvaṇa, the Śrāddha for obtaining specific reward, the auspicious Iṣṭi, and the unitary Śrāddha; at the first four of these, the man with the fire shall offer oblations into the fire; and at the latter four, in the hands of the Brāhmaṇas invited for the sake of the Pitṛs.’