History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.473

v7.c93.473

Another rule about words is that where a single substance connected with several attributes is concerned in an action laid down for being carried out, all of these attributes should be taken to refer to the same one substance (PMS III. 1 12). The Tai. S. prescribes 'he purchases Soma with a heifer one year old and having brown eyes and reddish in colour'. Here the two words 'piṅgākṣī' and 'ekahāyanī' yield a good etymological meaning, are in the same case and so refer to the same substance (heifer in this ²¹¹⁹ case). But the word 'aruṇayā' (of red colour) causes a doubt viz. whether it should be separated from the other two words in the sentence and taken in the sense of 'any reddish substance such as a piece of cloth' or whether it should be connected with the verb (he purchases), should thus be subordinate to the purchase and should be taken as referring to the one year old heifer. This last is the established conclusion. How Soma is to be purchased does not follow from any other text Therefore, in such a case several subsidiaries can be laid down in one injunction. If 'aruṇayā' be taken as referring to any red substance such as a piece of red cloth this one sentence would have to be divided into two vidhis 'he should purchase with a red piece of cloth' and 'he should purchase with a brown-eyed (heifer) one year old'. This would be a fault called 'vākyabheda'. This nyāya is explained by the Madanapārijāta pp. 88-89 and Aparārka (p. 1030) makes use of ²¹²⁰ it in explain-ing the correct import of the words of the Br. Up. IV. 4. 21 'tam-etam vedānuvacanena brāhmaṇā vividiṣanti' by saying that when the highest object in view is one but the subordinate elements are different these latter are to be lumped together.