Mimamsashastrasarvasva 5.3

5.3

jyotiṣṭomamāśrityodbhidguṇaḥ paśvarthatvena vidhīyata iti vāstu
tasmādguṇavidhiriti prāpte'bhidhīyate—
“ dhātoratyantapārārthyādviprakṛṣṭavidhestathā
phale karmaṇi vā neha guṇo vākye vidhīyate1 ”
“ phale vidhīyamāne guṇe parapadasambandhavidhānāddhātotyantapārārthyaṃ viprakṛṣṭārthavidhiśca | atha tu karmaṇyeva guṇo vidhīyate
tathāpi viprakṛṣṭārthavidhānaṃ, dhātośca kiñcitpārārthyamastyeva phalapadaṃ
cānarthakaṃ syāt
dadhyādau gatyabhāvena sarvametatsamā śritam2
udbhidādiṣu tannaivaṃ nāmadheyatvasambhavāt3 ”
“ dadhnendriyakāmasya juhuyāt,’ ‘ vrīhibhiryajetetyevamādiṣu
dadhivrīhyādipadānā marthāntare nirūḍhatvānna sāmānādhikaraṇyena yajināmatvam | aprasiddhārthaṃ hi prasiddhapadasāmānādhikaraṇyena nirṇeyaṃ
na tvatyantanirūḍhamapi taduktam4 ”—
“ padamajñātasandigdha5prasiddhairapṛthakśruti
nirṇīyate nirūḍhaṃ tu na svārthādapanīyate6 ”
iti tathā ca gatyabhāvāddadhyādau dhātu pārārthyaṃ viprakṛṣṭārthavidhānaṃ
cāśritam | udbhidādayastu yathaivāvayavadvāreṇa khanitrādau vartante
tathaiva svaphalodbhedanakāritvādyāge'pīti nātra dhātvarthavidhānaṃ
bādhitavyam—
“viśiṣṭavidhipakṣe tu bhavenmatvarthalakṣaṇā
somādau gatyabhāvātsā na tvatra gatisambhavāt1”
“prayojanañca nāmnāṃ vyavahāra eva sarvatra na hyanantareṇa nāmadheyaṃ ṛtvig varaṇādiṣyanenāhaṃ yakṣya iti laghurākhyānopāyaḥ
kvacicca guṇaphalopabandhenārthavattā | ‘darśapūrṇamāsāvārapsyamāno'nvārambhaṇīyāmiṣṭiṃ nirvape’diti guṇopabandhaḥ | ‘darśapūrṇamāsābhyāṃ svargakāma’ iti phalopabandhaḥ | kvacitkarmabhedakatayā'rthavatvam-yathā'thaiṣo'dbhidā yajete’ti2” | kvaciccānirdeśakatvena-yathā kuṇḍapāyināmayane māsamagnihotraṃ juhotīti
3 citrādiśabdānāṃ yāganāmatādhikaraṇam
yasmin guṇopadeśaḥ pradhānato'bhisambandhaḥ

Or let it be that, relying on the Jyotiṣṭoma, the subordinate element [named] udbhid is enjoined for the sake of cattle.
Therefore, the prima facie view having been reached that it is an injunction of a subordinate element, it is replied:
“Because the verbal root would be utterly subordinate to another, and because of the injunction of a remote [entity],
neither regarding the fruit nor the action is a subordinate element enjoined in the sentence here.
If the subordinate element were enjoined regarding the fruit, because of the injunction of a relation with another word, there would be utter subordination of the verbal root to another and the injunction of a remote entity. If, however, the subordinate element is enjoined with respect to the action itself,
even so there would be an injunction of a remote entity, and there is indeed some subordination of the verbal root to another, and the word for fruit would be meaningless.
All this was relied upon in the case of curd, etc., due to the lack of any [other] way out;
in the case of udbhid, etc., it is not so, because its being a name is possible.”
In passages such as “One desiring sensory capacity should offer with curd” and “One should sacrifice with rice grains,”
because the words “curd,” “rice grains,” etc., are established in another meaning, they cannot be names of the sacrifice through co-referentiality. For an unfamiliar meaning is to be determined through co-referentiality with a familiar word,
but not one that is thoroughly established [in another sense]. So it has been said:
“A word that is unknown or doubtful, having identical audible form with [words that are] known,
is determined [by them]; but what is established [in another meaning] is not removed from its own meaning.”
And thus, due to the lack of any [other] way out, in the case of curd, etc., subordination of the verbal root to another and the injunction of a remote entity were accepted. But words like udbhid, just as they apply to a shovel, etc., by way of their parts,
so also do they apply to a sacrifice because it brings about the bursting forth (udbhedana) of its own fruit; thus the injunction of the verbal root's meaning is not to be set aside here.
“On the view of a qualified injunction, however, there would be metaphorical transfer of the possessive suffix;
in the case of soma, etc., that [metaphorical transfer is accepted] because of the lack of [any other] way out, but not here, because a way out is possible.”
And the purpose of names is universally just practical communication. For without a name, there is no concise means of designation, such as in the choosing of the officiating priests: “With this [sacrifice] I shall sacrifice.”
And in some cases, it has purpose through connection with a subordinate element or fruit. “One who is about to undertake the New- and Full-Moon sacrifices should offer the Anvārambhaṇīyā offering”—this is connection with a subordinate element. “One desiring heaven [should sacrifice] with the New- and Full-Moon sacrifices”—this is connection with a fruit. In some cases, it has purpose by distinguishing actions, as in “Now, with this udbhid he should sacrifice.” And in some cases, by way of being an unspecified reference, as in “During the session of the Kuṇḍapāyins, he offers the Agnihotra for a month.”

3. The section on words such as citrā being names of sacrifices.
“Where there is instruction of a subordinate element, the connection is with the principal.”