History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.99.2

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;