History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.99
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.99
- Language
- English
v4.c63.t2.99.1
1347a Jai. VII. 3. 19-25 as understood by the Mit. may be briefly explained as follows: The Cāturmāsyas (seasonal sacrifices) are four, Vaiśvadeva, Varuṇapraghāsa, Sākamedha, Śunāsīrīya (vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 1091-1105 for description). In regard to these the following texts occur in the Veda and are cited by Śabara and others: द्वयोः प्रणयन्ति । तस्माद् द्वाभ्यां यन्ति ऊरू वा एतौ यज्ञस्य यद्वरुणप्रघासश्च साकमेधश्च । तस्माद् द्वाभ्यां यन्ति । ... उपात्र वपन्ति । न वैश्वदेवे उत्तरवेदिमुपकिरन्ति न शुनासीरीये । (They carry forward the fire in these two; therefore they march on two; indeed the Varuṇapraghāsa and Sākamedha are the two thighs of yajña; therefore they (are said to) march on two: they fill with earth (the *uttaravedi*) here, but not so in Vaiśvadeva nor in Sunāsīrīya). Śabara reads 'उत्तरवेदिमुपवपन्ति' while Mit. reads as above. *Praṇayana* means 'carrying towards the east fire from the Gārhapatya fire to the Āhavanīya.' There is praṇayana in the Darśapūrṇamāsa which is simple (and without details) and there is also praṇayana in Agniṣṭoma which is full of details (and not simple). An *uttaravedi* (vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 1096-1097 for description) is not required in Darśapūrṇamāsa, but it is required in a Soma sacrifice. The cāturmāsyas are modifications (*vikṛti*) of the Darśapūrṇamāsa, so that whatever is prescribed in the latter follows in the absence of express directions as a matter of course in the former.
v4.c63.t2.99.2
In the texts quoted above the words 'dvayoḥ praṇayanti' lay down a *vidhi* and the words 'tasmād ... sākamedhaśca' contain an *arthavāda* which forms a syntactical whole with the vidhi and which only eulogizes it. The *pūrvapakṣa* argues: As cāturmāsyas are modifications of Darśapūrṇamāsa, it is unnecessary to lay down expressly a simple praṇayana in them; therefore, the praṇayana prescribed in 'dvayoḥ praṇayanti' must be the praṇayana as described in a Soma sacrifice. Further the prohibition of an uttaravedi in Vaiśvaveda and Śunāsīrīya indicates the same, since a prohibition implies that there was a fear that what is prohibited would have otherwise followed and since an uttaravedi is required only in a Soma sacrifice. Therefore the praṇayana prescribed in 'dvayoḥ praṇayanti' is of the Somapraṇayana type. To this a partisan of the *siddhāntin* (siddhāntaikadeśin) replies as follows:—The real view is that in *dvayoḥ praṇayanti* the praṇayana is of the simple darśapūrṇamāsa type and the prohibition about Vaiśvadeva and Śunāsīrīya is not to be explained as you do; in the words 'upātra vapanti' an uttaravedi is generally (without exception) prescribed for all cāturmāsyas, but in the following two sentences 'na vaiśvadeve &c.' the preparation of uttaravedi is forbidden in the case of Vaiśvadeva and Śunāsīrīya;
v4.c63.t2.99.3
therefore the partisan says that the idea is that, though the praṇayana is of the simple darśapūrṇamāsa type, yet an uttaravedi is prepared in the 2nd and 3rd but not in the first and fourth of the cāturmāsyas. The pūrvapakṣin retorts that even on this construction *vidhivaiṣamya* would still be there as follows: as there is prescription of uttaravedi in all four and prohibition in two (viz. the first and fourth of the four cāturmāsyas), there is an option of uttaravedi in these latter two (as the rule is 'tulyabala-virodhe vikalpaḥ') and there is no option as to the other two and there will arise the fault of *vidhivaiṣamya*, the same sentence viz. 'upātra vapanti' being taken as an unqualified and independent rule about the 2nd and 3rd of the cāturmāsyas and taken as an optional rule as to the 1st and 4th. The proper siddhānta view is as follows: Though the words 'dvayoḥ praṇayanti' are very general, they are to be narrowed down so as to refer to only two (viz. 2nd and 3rd of the cāturmāsyas) on account of the recommendatory passage that follows (speaking of Varuṇapraghāsa and Sākamedha as the thighs of cāturmāsya yajña). The vidhi and the following arthavāda form one syntactical whole (*ekavākya*), as laid down by Jai. I. 2. 7.
v4.c63.t2.99.4
The arthavāda passage means that just as a man marches on in strength if his thighs are strong, so the cāturmāsya sacrifice reaches a successful close by means of Varuṇapraghāsa and Sākamedha in which an uttaravedi is specially prepared and fire is laid thereon (being taken from the āhavanīya fire by the adhvaryu and pratiprasthātṛ). Therefore the meaning is that there is praṇayana in the 2nd and 3rd out of the four cāturmāsyas and uttaravedi is prescribed in those two alone and the words 'there is no uttaravedi in Vaiśvadeva and Sunāsīrīya' are a mere *anuvāda* (repetition of what is already known) and not a prohibition, as in the words 'fire should be kindled on the earth and not in the sky nor in heaven'. On this interpretation there is no *vidhivaiṣamya*. Sabara makes two *adhikaraṇas* of Jai. VII. 3. 19-25, while Kumārila makes one adhikaraṇa of these seven sūtras. He further differs as to the siddhānta, which, according to him, is that in 'dvayoḥ praṇayanti' there is a special (*apūrva*) kind of praṇayana prescribed, *prākṛta* (of darśapūrṇamāsa type) and *saumika* praṇayana being the two other views which he rejects. The Subodhinī on the Mit.
v4.c63.t2.99.5
very lucidly explains this discussion and concludes: यथा तत्रैकदेशिमते विधिवैषम्यं दोषस्तथा 'पत्न्यः कार्याः समांशिकाः,' 'माताऽप्यंशं समं हरेत्' इत्यत्र च सकृदाम्नातो अंशसमशब्दावपि भर्तुर्बहुधनत्वपक्षे 'भरणं चास्य कुर्वीरन्' इत्यादिवक्यपर्यालोचनया जीवनोपयुक्तधनपरौ स्वल्पधनत्वे तु वाक्यान्तरानपेक्षेण निरवद्यतुर्यांशसमांशपराविति श्रीकराद्युक्तव्याख्यानेपि विधिवैषम्यदोषो दुर्वार इति ।. The Bālambhaṭṭī repeats the Subodhinī almost word for word. This *nyāya* occurs in Dāyabhāga XI. 5. 16 also.