History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.59.4

v4.c63.t2.59.4

These are two entirely different propositions and the rule of mīmāṁsā is that one and the same sentence¹³²⁰ should not be construed as laying down two rules (*vidhis*) applicable to different sets of circumstances. To so construe a text is to be guilty of the fault of *vākyabheda* (splitting up of a sentence so as to yield two distinct rules). The V. Mayūkha construed Manu IX. 142 so as to indicate only one sense and avoid the fault of *vākyabheda* on the analogy of two examples discussed in the Pūrvamīmāṁsā¹³²¹ works, but if the reasoning of the Bombay High Court were followed the same fault to avoid which Nīlakaṇṭha strives hard would be committed. There is another mīmāṁsā rule¹³²² which will be violated by the Bombay High Court's interpretation of Manu IX. 142 viz. when an already existing thing or entity and something to be accomplished or brought about in future are spoken of together in a sentence the thing already existing or accomplished is mentioned simply for the sake of the thing to be accomplished. The accomplished fact is adoption itself. Manu who mentions adoption or the adopted son which is an accomplished entity also mentions along with it the taking of property (*rikthaharaṇa*); hence that taking must have reference to the future bringing about and not the undoing of *rikthaharaṇa* which had already taken place long before.