History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.317

v7.c93.317

When the particle ‘na’ is employed in a sentence, it is either a prohibition or a paryudāsa or an arthavāda, These three have to be clearly distinguished. In Darśapūrṇamāsa the two ājyabhāgas are an anga (P M. S IV. 4 30) and a passage states that the two ājyabhāgas are the eyes of the Darśapūrṇamāsa sacrifice ²⁰²⁹ In connection with this the Veda says ‘these two are not performed in an animal sacrifice nor in a Soma sacrifice’. The question is; is this a prohibition or a paryudāsa or an arthavāda. A pratiṣedha occurs only when there is the possibility of what is prohibited following as a matter of course. As the ājyabhāgas are prescribed in Darśapūrṇamāsa there is no possibility of these two being required in a Somayāga and there is no real prohibition. Nor is there *paryudāsa*, for if it be a paryudāsa there would be no proper connection, since in paryudāsa one would have to say ‘there are ājyabhāgas in darśapūrnamāsa except in somayāgs’, which would be absurd. Therefore, these words ‘na tau paśau karoti na some’ contain an arthavāda. A true ²⁰³⁰ prohibition would occur only when something is first prescribed and then prohibited. The stock example is of the Sodaśin cup; there are two Vedic sentences of equal authority ‘he takes the sodaśin cup in Atirātra’ and ‘he does not take the Sodaśin cup in atirātra’; owing to this conflict an option is allowed. Similarly, there is a Vedic passage ‘Vrīhibhir yajeta yavairvā’ (one shall offer a sacrifice with grains of rice or with yavas) Therefore, in the above two cases where the two texts are irreconcilable, there is no way except that of allowing an option (vikalpa). But 'vikalpa' is liable to eight faults.²⁰³¹ Therefore, an effort has to be made to avoid option and accept as far as possible a paryudāsa or arthavāda, since by accepting an option, the authoritative statement in one case or the other has to be regarded as unauthoritative and not binding. Śabara and Tantravārtika provide that *vikalpa* should be resorted to only in case there is no other way. The P. M. S. lays down that vikalpa may be accepted when several things having the same object (or sense) are stated by several authoritative texts.