History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.99.3

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.