History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.286

v7.c93.286

²⁰¹⁵ हेतुर्वा स्यादर्थवत्त्वोपपत्तिभ्याम्। स्तुतिस्तु शब्दपूर्वत्वादचोदना च तस्य। पू मी. सू I. 2. 26-27. अथ ये हेतुवन्निगदाः शूर्पेण जुहोति तेन ह्यन्नं क्रियत इत्येवमादयः। तेषु सन्देहः। किं स्तुतिस्तेषां कार्यमुत हेतुरिति।; अस्मत्पक्षे पुनः शूर्प स्तूयते। तेन ह्यन्नं क्रियत इति वृत्तान्तान्वाख्यानं न च वृत्तान्तज्ञापनाय किं तर्हि प्ररोचनायैव। तस्माद्धेतुवन्निगदस्यापि स्तुतिरेव कार्यमिति। शबर on I 2 30 शूर्प was used like a *juhū* ladle to make a homa of Karambhapātras (pots full of husked grains of yava slightly fried, ground and mixed with curds) in the Varuṇapraghāsa, one of the cāturmāsyas The position of the P. M S is that what Veda declares is authoritative, there is no need to cite reasons for the statements of the Veda It may cite a reason for its declaration, even though no necessity exists. As stated by the Bhāṭṭacintāmaṇi "अनेन वेदविहितेऽर्थे हेत्वपेक्षा नास्तीति पार्थसारथिमतोत्पादितानपेक्षत्वं हेतुगादरयैति सूचितम्। उक्तं च 'न हि वेदेनोच्यमानं हेतुमपेक्षते' इति॥". Vide for a detailed discussion of this हेतुवन्निगदाधिकरण in connection with the rule of Vasiṣṭha 15. 3-4 (na tvēkam putram dadyāt pratigṛhṇīyādvā, sa hi santānāya pūrvēṣām) in H. of Dh. vol III. pp 676-77 n. 1277 Here the first is a vidhi, 'dadyāt' and 'pratigṛhṇīyāt' being in the optative mood, (*Continued from last page*) while the latter part containing a reason (in 'sa hi &c ') is an arthavāda, lauding the importance of a son). This topic of Hetuvan-nigadādhikaraṇa figured very much in the case of Beni Prasad vs. Hardai Bibi I. L R. 14 All 67 (F B). The court was misled on two points, by counsel as to the first and by Mandlik's wrong statement (in 'Hindu law' p. 499) as to the 2nd. viz. that Jaimini flourished in the 13th century A. D and secondly (p 73, 125) 'it is a rule of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā that all texts supported by the assigning of a reason are to be deemed not as vidhis but simply as arthavādas (recommendatory)'. This case went up to the Privy Council as Radha Mohan vs Hardai Bibi L R. 26 I. A. p. 153, where the Privy Council was more cautious and did not accept in its entirety the wrong statement of Mandlik