History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.438

v7.c93.438

The Mīmāṁsā rule is that where there is a²⁰⁹⁶ doubt about the exact meaning of a part of a passage, it may be determined by relying on the remaining parts of the passage. Vide above for the example 'he puts down anointed pebbles' &c. (p. 1240). The Mīmāṁsā is very much against assuming conflict among Vedic texts and therefore allows an option only if there is no other way out. Vide remarks on *vikalpa* above (p. 1250). Another general rule is that the singular includes the plural. In the Mīmāṁsā it is called 'Grahaikatvanyāya (P. M. S. III. 1. 13-15). In the Jyotiṣṭoma sacrifice a number of cups (*grahas*) filled with Soma are offered to deities and drunk at the three *savanas* (pressings of Soma) and Śruti states 'he wipes or cleanses the cup with the strainer made of white wool' (*daśāpavitrena graham saṁ-mārṣṭi*) and in the Darśapūrṇamāsa it is said 'he carries a firebrand round the puroḍāśa (cake)'. The question is whether a single cup ('graham' is the word used) is to be cleansed or a single puroḍāśa is to have a firebrand carried round it or whether all cups called grahas or puroḍāśas are to be treated as stated. The established conclusion is that all grahas are to be cleansed and all puroḍāśas have the firebrand carried round them. The singular number is not intended to be insisted on.²⁰⁹⁷ From this a further general rule is derived by Kumārila and others that an attribute of the subject (*anuvādya* or *uddiśyamāna*)²⁰⁹⁸ about which something is predicated (*vidheya*) is not intended and should not be insisted upon. This is frequently relied on in Dharmaśāstra works. Yāj II. 121 states that the father and son have equal ownership in land, a corrody and wealth (gold and silver &c.) acquired by the grand-father. Here the word *pitāmaha* is not to be insisted upon and the same rule applies to land or wealth acquired by a great-grand-father, as the V. M. says.²⁰⁹⁹ Similarly, when Nāradasmṛti says (16. 37) 'of brothers being undivided religious worship (or rites) are one, but if there is a partition then they may have separate religious worship'. Here the proper subject is the word 'undivided persons', and the word 'brothers' is used only as an attribute, which is not intended to be insisted on and the same rule applies to undivided grand-father, father, sons, uncles and nephews. Medhātithi on Manu II. 29 mentions this maxim. The same rule is applied in some cases to gender also i. e. a word importing males includes females also. For example, Yāj II. 182 and Nārada (8. 40 ff) lay down certain rules about a *dāsa* (male slave). The V. M. says that the masculine gender in these passages is not intended to be insisted upon, but the rules apply even to female slaves.²¹⁰⁰ There are exceptions to these rules. The rule about grahas does not apply to *camasas* (P. M. S III. 1. 16-17).²¹⁰¹ This rule that the qualification (*viśeṣaṇa*) of the subject in a vidhi is not meant to be taken literally and emphasized is applied in many other cases. Three verses from the Kālikāpurāṇa are quoted by Kalpataru (on vyavahāra pp. 210-211) and V. M. (pp. 45-46) about the performance of an ordeal in certain grave charges and this maxim is applied by the V. M. there in the words 'paradārarūpam viśeṣaṇam-avivakṣitam-abhiśāpasyānuvādyatvāt'; vide notes to V. M. pp. 83-84. But in 'paśum-ālabheta', where there is a vidhi about 'yāga' it must be held that what is laid down is yāga as qualified by being made with a male animal and therefore only one paśu (and that paśu a male) is to be sacrificed.