History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.501

v7.c93.501

Another illustration of vākyabheda can be cited from the law of re-union. The Mit., Dāyabhāga and Sm. C. (on Vyavahāra p. 302) quote a text²¹³³ of Bṛhaspati 'that man who being once separated from his father, brother, or paternal uncle again dwells through affection with them (or any of them) is said to be re-united with them (or him)'. According to the Mit., a reunion is possible only with father, brother and paternal uncle and with no one else, since no one else is mentioned in the text of Bṛhaspati. The V. M. does not approve of this limitation and says that a re-union is possible with all or any of those that participated in the partition and that the three persons, father, brother and uncle are mentioned only by way of illustration (i. e. there is *lakṣaṇā*). A man may separate not only from the three named persons but also from his paternal grand-father, the grandson of his brother and the son of his paternal uncle and several other persons and therefore the construction of the text of Bṛhaspati by the Mit. is liable to the fault of vākyabheda, since on that interpretation there would be two separate propositions viz. (1) that man is to be called re-united who having become separate again stays together with the one from whom he separated, (2) one can re-unite only with the father, brother, or paternal uncle. Thus there would be two distinct prescriptions in one sentence. Therefore, one should have recourse to *lakṣaṇā* viz. that the three named persons indicate a class of persons from whom one may have separated but with whom he then stayed together. The Vīramitrodaya (on Vyavahāra), V. R. (pp. 605-67), V. C. p. 533 hold the same view as that of the V. M.²¹³⁴