Sarvadarshanasangraha 12.4

12.4

tatrācāryamatānusāreṇādhikaraṇaṃ nirūpyate/ svādhyāyo 'dhyetavya ity etad vākyaṃ viṣayaḥ/ codanālakṣaṇo 'rtho dharmaḥ ity ārabhyānvāhārye ca darśanāt ity etadantaṃ jaiminīyaṃ dharmaśāstram anārabhyam ārabhyaṃ veti saṃdehaḥ/ adhyayanavidher adṛṣṭārthatvadṛṣṭārthatvābhyāṃ tatrānārabhyam iti pūrvaḥ pakṣaḥ/ adhyayanavidher arthāvabodhalakṣaṇadṛṣṭaphalakatvānupapatteḥ/ arthāvabodhārtham adhyayanavidhir iti vadan vādī praṣṭavyaḥ — kim atyantam aprāptam adhyayanaṃ vidhīyate kiṃ vā pākṣikam avaghātavan niyamyata iti/ na tāvad ādyaḥ/ vivādapadaṃ vedādhyayanam arthāvabodhahetur adhyayanatvād bhāratādhyayanavad ity anumānena vidhyanapekṣatayā prāptatvāt/ astu tarhi dvitīyo yathā nakhavidalanādinā taṇḍulaniṣpattisaṃbhavāt pākṣiko 'vaghāto 'vaśyam kartavya iti vidhinā niyamyate tathā likhitapāṭhenārthajñānasaṃbhavāt pākṣikam adhyayanaṃ vidhinā niyamyata iti cet —

Now the first topic which introduces the discussions of the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā arises from the aphorism, "Now therefore a desire to know duty [is to be entertained by thee"]. Now the learned describe a "topic" as consisting of five members, and these are (a.) the subject, (b.) the doubt, (c.) the primâ facie argument, (d.) the demonstrated conclusion, and (e.) the connection (saṅgati). The topic is discussed according to the doctrines held by the great teachers of the system. Thus the "subject" to be discussed is the sentence, "The Veda is to be read." Now the "doubt" which arises is whether the study of Jaimini's śāstra concerning duty, beginning with the aphorism, "Duty is a thing which is to be recognised by an instigatory passage," and ending with "and from seeing it in the anvāhārya," is to be commenced or not. The primâ facie argument is that it is not to be commenced, whether the injunction to read the Veda be held to have a visible and present or an invisible and future fruit. (a.) If you say that this injunction must have a visible fruit, and this can be no other[4] than the knowledge of the meaning of what is read, we must next ask you whether this said reading is enjoined as something which otherwise would not have been thought of, or whether as something which otherwise would have been optional, as we see in the rule for shelling rice.[5] It cannot be the former, for the reading of the Veda is a means of knowing the sense thereof from its very nature as reading, just as in the parallel instance of reading the Mahābhārata; and we see by this argument that it would present itself as an obvious means quite independently of the injunction. Well, then, let it be the latter alternative; just as the baked flour cake called puroḍāsa is made only of rice prepared by being unhusked in a mortar, when, but for the injunction, it might have been unhusked by the finger-nails. There, however, the new moon and full moon sacrifices only produce their unseen effect, which is the principal apūrva, by means of the various minor effects or subordinate apūrvas, produced by the various subordinate parts of the whole ceremony; and consequently the minor apūrva of the unhusking is the reason there for the restricting injunction. But in the case which we are discussing, there is no such reason for any such restriction, as the rites can be equally well performed by gaining the knowledge of the Veda's meaning by reading a written book, or by studying under an authorised teacher. Hence we conclude that there is no injunction to study the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā as a means of knowing the sense of the Veda. (b.) "What, then, becomes of the Vedic injunction, 'The Veda is to be read'?" Well, you must be content with the fact that the injunction will have heaven as its [future] fruit, although it merely enjoins the making oneself master of the literal words of the Vedic text [without any care to understand the meaning which they may convey], since heaven, though not expressly mentioned, is to be assumed as the fruit, according to the analogy of the Viśvajit offering. Just as Jaimini, in his aphorism (iv. 3, 15), "Let that fruit be heaven, since it equally applies to all," establishes that those who are not expressly mentioned are still qualified to offer the Viśvajit sacrifice, and infers by argument that its characteristic fruit is heaven, so let us assume it to be in the present case also. As it has been said—