Sarvadarshanasangraha 12.10

12.10

siddhāntas tv anyataḥ prāptatvād aprāptavidhitvaṃ māstu/ niyamavidhitvapakṣas tu vajrahastenāpi nāpahastayituṃ pāryate/ tathā hi svādhyāyo 'dhyetavya iti tavyapratyayaḥ preraṇāparaparyāyāṃ puruṣapravṛttirūpārthabhāvanābhāvyām abhidhābhāvanāṃ pratyāyayati/ sā hy arthabhāvanā bhāvyam ākāṅkṣati/ na tāvat samānapadopāttam adhyayanaṃ bhāvyatvena pariramate/ adhyayanaśabdārthasya svādhīnoccāraṇakṣamatvasya vāṅmanasavyāpārasya kleśārthakasya bhāvyatvāsaṃbhavāt/ nāpi samānavākyopāttaḥ svādhyāyaḥ/ svādhyāyaśabdārthasya varṇarāśer nityatvena vibhutvena cotpattyādīnāṃ caturṇāṃ kriyāphalānām asaṃbhavāt/ tasmāt sāmarthyaprāpto 'vabodho bhāvyatvenāvatiṣṭhate/ arthī samartho vidvān adhikriyata iti nyāyena darśapūrṇamāsādividhayaḥ svaviṣayāvabodham apekṣamāṇāḥ svārthabodhe svādhyāyaṃ viniyuñjate/ adhyayanavidhiś ca likhitapāṭhādivyāvṛttādhyayanasaṃskṛtatvaṃ svādhyāyasyāvagamayati/ tathā ca yathā darśapūrṇamāsādijanyaṃ paramāpūrvam avaghātādijanyasyāvāntarāpūrvasya kalpakaṃ tathā samastakratujanyam apūrvajātaṃ kratujñānasādhanādhyayananiyamajanyam apūrvaṃ kalpayiṣyati/ niyamādṛṣṭāniṣṭau vidhiśravaṇavaiphalyam āpadyeta/ na ca viśvajinnyāyena phalakalpanāvakalpyate/ arthāvabodhe dṛṣṭe phale sati phalāntarakalpanāyā ayogāt/

The "authoritative conclusion" (siddhānta), however, is as follows:—

We grant that it cannot be a case of vidhi, for it might have been adopted on other grounds; but not even Indra with his thunderbolt could make us lose our hold of the other alternative that it is a case of niyama. In the sentence, "The Veda is to be read," the affix tavya expresses an enforcing power in the word,[6] which is to be rendered visible by a corresponding action in man, bringing a certain effect into existence; and this enforcing power seeks some corresponding end which is connected with the man's creative effort. Now it cannot be the act itself of reading, as suggested by the whole word adhyetavya, which it thus seeks as an end; for this act of reading, thus expressed by the word, could never be regarded as an end, since it is a laborious operation of the voice and mind, consisting in the articulate utterance of the portion read. Nor could the portion read, as suggested by the whole sentence, be regarded as the end. For the mass of words called "Veda," which is what we really mean by the words "portion read," being eternal and omnipresent, could never fulfil the conditions of the four "fruits of action," production, &c.[7] Therefore the only true end which remains to us is the knowledge of the meaning, as obtained by carrying out the sense of the words of the injunction. According to the old rule, "He has the right who has the want, the power, and the wit," those who are aiming to understand certain things, as the new and full moon sacrifices, use their daily reading to learn the truth about them. And the injunction for reading, since it virtually excludes the reading of written books, &c. [from the well-known technical sense of the word "read" when used in this connection], conveys the idea that the reading the Veda enjoined has a consecrated character [as taught by a duly authorised teacher]. Therefore, as the principal apūrva, produced by the great new and full moon sacrifices, necessitates and establishes the subordinate apūrvas produced by the inferior sacrificial acts, as unhusking the rice, &c., so the mass of apūrva produced by all the sacrifices necessitates and establishes a previous apūrva produced by the restricting injunction (niyama), which prescribes reading the Veda as the means to know how to perform these sacrifices. If you hesitate to concede that a niyama could have this future influence called apūrva, the same doubt might equally invalidate the efficacy of a vidhi [as the two stand on the same level as to their enjoining power]. Nor is the supposition a valid one that heaven is the fruit, according to the analogy of the Viśvajit offering, since, if there is a present and visible fruit in the form of a knowledge of the meaning of the sacred text, it is improper to suppose any other future and unseen fruit. Thus it has been said—