The discussion starts with the issue as to how many Darbhas we should use as Asanam pavitram and so on while performing rituals. Incidentally, many other connected issues are also covered. I am giving below the relevant portions contained in my answers
The usual number of two darbhas two is the minimum. For devakaryams and Shubhakaryams the number should be even or multiples of two and for pitrukaryams it is three. That is all
Therefore, dwivachanam is not too relevant or mandatory everywhere. If you are particular, you can use dwivachanam when you use just two darbhas. Karakas we follow are not having the force of any Vedic mantram
Pavitram and darbhas we should use for pitrukaryams is three. However, for Shubhakaryam we use even number conventionally
For example, for Avaniavittam or upakarmam the vadhyar will give darbhas, Asanam and pavitram with two strands. However for pitru Tarpanam, the number will be three.. The two is minimum. In some cases and if we choose we can use darbhas for good purpose in multiples of two. This is a very basic idea. The person who made the query is asking about a grammar issue. Why are we using bahuvachanam instead of dwivachanam. The only answer could be that people were not stingy about dharba, and they used multiple pair strands for Shubhakaryam.
Also, for pretakaryam they use single strand pavitram..
in fact the subject is so wide. I have before me some ten or twelve standard texts. Including all the famous commentators.. Each book in Sanskrit, with commentary too in Sanskrit would run on average to eight hundred pages. Some books are in Grantham script too. What I discover from the explanations given by some commentators is that they have considered the pramanams only partially and they have not attempted to explain possible contradictions elsewhere in the same txt or elsewhere.. And in each text we would find some comments would be the compilation of opinions of a large number of rishis, and each one may differ with others even on minor issues. For example, there is a lot of dispute as to whether we can place Tulasi on the right ear of a dead body. While some authorities take the view that it is a sacred act, some say it is desecration of the divine plant.. The disputes will go on and on, even on minor matters.
However, on major issues, if we follow the Sutram prescribed for the Sakha, we will get a consensus.
What I want to state is that i could cover only ten to fifteen pages of Sanskrit in a few hours on a day, and usually I try to find answers by poring over the subject on the issue raised. In addition, there is a risk in that. Some other portion of the text in a different context would give a different interpretation altogether. Therefore, our clarifications can be done on the basis of only specific parameters.. God knows whether it is within my reach. A professional priest or an upanyasakara cannot do that because his interest is more in dishing out what he knows and he has little time for study. He has to eke out a livelihood too.
A typical example. Some commentators would say that a Sraddham done on black Thrayodashi would affect the longevity of the kartha, his eldest son, or wife.. Nevertheless, if the thithi of the father or mother falls on that day he has to perform Sraddham without fail. No smriti allows any exception. And at the same time the Thrayodashi in Mahalayapaksham is considered Gajachaya punya alam and many treat it as the holiest period for doing Sraddham..
They perform the Sraddham for many purposes on Chaturdashi for accidental deaths, death of fallen people, and or death in war, as a result of murder etc., and that Sraddham according to some can be done only as Ekodishtam, something like the Sraddham on the eleventh day of death for pretham. But if that thithi happens to be the date of death, of a parent, then there is no escape, though the action can be visited with doshas and papas.
Moreover, in such situations even the sages flounder. How can we talk authoritatively about even such matters
The meanings of marriage ceremonies is another controversy.
In addition, I read somewhere about yan me maathaa pralulopa... etc. Some say it is an absolute insult tow womanhood. But we the apastambhiyas have to give ahuti for mother, paternal grandmother, paternal great grandmother and their spouses chanting that mantram only. Often ignorance seems to be blissful.
For pitru Tarpanam the number of darbhas is three. No two views about it.. But I have seen loukeeka, vaideeka people who become ad-hoc priests for Tarpanam alone just uniformly distributing pavitram of two strands.. Koorcham of two strands etc, which is not permitted.
The major smritis, including the Yajnavalkya underline the importance of elderly ladies, mother, grandmothers, aunts and elder sisters whose views are to be considered when there are certain unique rituals or practices, not of the mainstream type, as and not opposed to Vedas, are practiced by the family or the groups in the locality.. Even the aathu Vadhyar would ask us to consult the elderly women before taking such decisions. Alas, now we are left with a generation of elderly women too who can do precious little. Anyway, many such women have a tendency to bluff rather than pleading ignorance. Male or female, vaideeka, pandita or loukeeka should give opinions only after considering the precedents. Brahmins were valued because even at the risk of their lives they would not lie or mislead. However, can we claim that credit now?
I do not confine myself to Subhashitams. Actually I was trying to give my views to members in many exclusive groups who are not conscious of the sacredness of the issue. And when we discuss serious points, they make slapstick comments.. Even elderly and otherwise sensible Iyers and pattars are experts in trivializing the issues.. I am helpless.
Other subject is Sanskrit literature. There too, the standard of discussion is below decent standards. In addition, the genuinely learned gurus do not participate at all.
Of course, I am trying to create a parallel archive. Also, I am trying to record and jot down notes on all issues I come across in such matters.
But I am always careful not to enter any discussion on law, taxation and politics. The first two are my professional wealth.
Smriti mukthaaphalam of Vaidyanatha Deekshita is neither samkshepam nor wide. In a total of 1500 pages or so in Sanskrit, it gives almost all explanations we need. And each statement in that treatise is backed up by a lot of references, which can lead us to other wider texts. On issues covered more instances from Puranas and local stories and numerous conflicting smritis are given as illustration and they are not quoted from Shruti or Vedas.. Therefore, I can understand the problem.
However, today we lack interested scholars who could spend time explaining things, and self-study is nearly impossible.
The texts of Hemadri, madhaveeyam smritichandrika nirnayasindhu dharmasindhu and many other books in Sanskrit are available in the web. Most of the dharma sootras and grihya sootras too, are available for download, but all the texts are available in either Devanagari or Granthalipi. Now data is not the issue. Reading and understanding is quite a serious challenge.
