365bet娱乐

Jaimini said,

鈥�艣谤耻迟颈-濒颈峁単补-惫腻办测补-辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺蝉迟丑腻苍补-蝉补尘腻办丑测腻苍补峁� samav膩ye p膩radaurbalyam arthaviprakar峁Ｄ乼.鈥�^[1]

It means that in the common applicability of 艣谤耻迟颈, 濒颈峁単补, 惫腻办测补, 辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺, 蝉迟丑腻苍补 and 蝉补尘腻办丑测腻, the weakness of the latter is by reason of the distance of the sense. Here distance is from 艣谤耻迟颈 proof. The weakness of the latter proof suggests the strength of the previous proof. Among these proofs only the 艣谤耻迟颈 has the power of enjoining something. The others do not have such power. They become powerful through 艣谤耻迟颈. If any sacrificer wants to ascertain the subsidiariness of some hymn, substance, deity or any action with the help of the 濒颈峁単补 proof, then he has to search first a 艣谤耻迟颈 proof. With the help of that inferred or sought 艣谤耻迟颈, he can apply that hymn etc. But when a direct (办岣穚迟补) 艣谤耻迟颈 is available, the inferred (kalpita) 艣谤耻迟颈 becomes redundant. If a horseman and a pedestrian of footman are advised simultaneously to bring a thing from a distant place, then the horseman reaches to that thing quickly and fetches it and the effort of the footman becomes fruitless. Or it is unnecessary to infer the warmth of fire when it is known by direct touching. It is the same in case of six proofs. The 艣谤耻迟颈 proof always obstructs others and the 蝉补尘腻办丑测腻 proof is always obstructed by the others. The 濒颈峁単补, 惫腻办测补, 辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 and 蝉迟丑腻苍补 proofs sometimes obstruct and sometimes they are obstructed.

碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 叠丑补峁�峁�补 has rightly said,

鈥�b膩dhikaiva 艣谤耻迟颈 苍颈迟测补峁� 蝉补尘腻办丑测腻 b膩dhyate 蝉补诲腻 |
madhyam膩n膩峁� tu b膩dhyatva峁� b膩dhakatvam apek峁�ay膩 触触鈥�

(A) Supremacy of Direct Assertion

For this reason, Indra鈥檚 verse (a补颈苍诲谤墨 峁沜) is not used for reverencing Indra. But it is used for reverencing the 驳腻谤丑补辫补迟测补 fire.

The hymn goes like this:

鈥�kad膩cana star墨rasi nendra sa艣casi d膩艣u峁�e |
upopennu maghavan bh奴ya innu te 诲腻苍补峁� devasya 辫峁沜测补迟别 触触鈥�

(O Indra! Never you are harmful. But you go to the sacrificer closely who gives ghee and be pleased with him. O Maghavan! The ghee offered to you again becomes related to you i.e. you get it again and again.)

This hymn has the power (蝉腻尘补谤迟丑测补) to express the characteristic feature of Indra. But it is not known from this hymn that, what should be done with this hymn. So, it is imagined that this hymn should be used in some rite related to Indra and this information is acquired by discussing the power of the hymn.

But the injunction says

鈥�adindry膩 驳腻谤丑补辫补迟测补m upati峁ａ弓hate鈥�^[2]

(He should stand up or go near the 驳腻谤丑补辫补迟测补 fire by reciting the hymn related to Indra.).

Here the second case-ending used after the word 鈥�驳腻谤丑补辫补迟测补鈥� expresses the predominance of the 驳腻谤丑补辫补迟测补 fire. So, by 艣谤耻迟颈 proof it is proved that this hymn should be used in upasth膩nkriy膩 (standing up or going near). The word 鈥槻的灏�丑补辫补迟测补鈥� means a certain kind of fire among three kinds of fire i.e. 驳腻谤丑补辫补迟测补, 腻丑补惫补苍墨测补 and 诲腻办峁�i峁嘺 fires. So, the word garhapatya is a conventional or traditional word (谤耻岣峢颈). But if the above hymn is used in indropa蝉迟丑腻苍补kriy膩, then the conventional meaning of the word 驳腻谤丑补辫补迟测补 should be discarded and it will mean Indra by the secondary power (濒补办峁�a峁嚹�) of the word. On the basis of that power 鈥�aindrdyendram upa ti峁ａ弓hate鈥� (He should stand up or go near Indra by reciting the 补颈苍诲谤墨 峁沜)鈥攕uch kind of 艣谤耻迟颈 must be imagined. But before that the second case-ending of 鈥�驳腻谤丑补辫补迟测补m鈥� directly expresses the subservience of this hymn to the 驳腻谤丑补辫补迟测补 fire. So, the power related to a hymn is obstructed by direct 艣谤耻迟颈. For this reason 艣谤耻迟颈 is more powerful than 濒颈峁単补 or 蝉腻尘补谤迟丑测补.

The commentator 笔补谤补尘补丑补峁僺补 搁腻尘别艣惫补谤补 叠丑颈办峁�u says in his commentary 鈥�础谤迟丑补蝉补峁僩谤补丑补办补耻尘耻诲墨 鈥� that in the case of application through 濒颈峁単补 proof, one needs four steps鈥�

1. Knowing the power of the hymn,
2. Determining the power of the hymn to express its subject matter (i.e. its relation to Indra),
3. Inferring a 艣谤耻迟颈 and
4. Application.

But in case of the 艣谤耻迟颈 proof only the first and the fourth steps are necessary. So, the supremacy of 艣谤耻迟颈 is doubtless, because it takes short time.

笔腻谤迟丑补蝉腻谤补迟丑颈 惭颈艣谤补 also says in his 鈥�艢腻蝉迟谤补诲墨辫颈办腻鈥欌赌�

鈥�y膩vad eva hi mantr膩rtho mantre峁嘺 pratip膩dyate |
t膩vad eva 艣谤耻迟颈r 尘补苍迟谤补峁� g膩rhapaty膩rthat膩峁� nayet 触触鈥�

Where there is no direction of 艣谤耻迟颈, as in 鈥�agnaye ju峁ａ弓a峁� nirvap膩mi鈥� (I set apart [the rice grains] in an agreeable form for the Fire), there, discussing the power of the sacred text to denote offering, a direct assertion (艣谤耻迟颈) is assumed, viz., 鈥渙ne should make an offering with this sacred text.鈥� Here 濒颈峁単补 is certainly directive, for there is nothing to abstruct the assumption of a direct assertion.

(B) Comparative Strength of 尝颈峁単补 or Indication than Sentence

The 濒颈峁単补 or indication is stronger than 惫腻办测补, 辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 etc. There is a hymn used in the new-and full-moon sacrifices.

It goes like this:

鈥�syona峁� te 蝉补诲补苍补峁� k峁涐箛omi gh峁泃asya dh膩ray膩 su艣eva峁� kalpay膩mi |
tasmin s墨d膩m峁泃a pratiti峁ａ弓ha vr墨h墨峁嚹佱箖 medha 蝉耻尘补苍补蝉测补尘腻苍补岣� 触触鈥�

It means鈥�

鈥极 辫耻谤辞诲腻艣补 (sacrificial cake)! I am making a proper place for you. I am making it fit for seating with the stream or shower of clarified butter. O 笔耻谤辞诲腻艣补鈥攖he essence of rice! O immortal! Be seated in that place (made for you) and be established.鈥�

In the new-and full-moon sacrifices 辫耻谤辞诲腻艣补s are made out of rice or barley. After threshing, unhusking and winnowing rice or barley, it is ground. Then the ground rice or barley mixed with water, is fried. Then it becomes 辫耻谤辞诲腻艣补. It gets the shape of a tortoise and it gets the size of the hoof of a horse. After preparing 辫耻谤辞诲腻艣补, it is kept in a vessel or pot. Before keeping it in a pot, the pot is anointed with ghee. This anointing is called 鈥�sadana鈥�.

In the above hymn, 鈥�sadana鈥� is expressed by the first part of the hymn. But the second part is related to keeping of 辫耻谤辞诲腻艣补 (辫耻谤辞诲腻艣补-蝉迟丑腻辫补苍补). Here this keeping is called 鈥�蝉腻诲补苍补鈥�. Though these two parts of this hymn express different actions, yet the use of the term 鈥�tasmin鈥� in the second part, suggests the oneness of the sentence. The word 鈥�tad鈥� waits for the word 鈥�yad鈥� and there is a rule鈥斺��arthaikatv膩d eka峁� 惫腻办测补m鈥�(If there is oneness of sense, there is one sentence.). If the hymn is a one sentence, then a question arises: Does the whole sentence express the meaning of 鈥�sadana鈥� or 鈥�蝉腻诲补苍补鈥�? Or, does the first part tell about 鈥�sadana鈥� and does the second part tell about 鈥�蝉腻诲补苍补鈥�?

The answer is that 濒颈峁単补 is stronger than 惫腻办测补. So, while 惫腻办测补 will start the application of the hymn in 鈥�sadana鈥� or 鈥�蝉腻诲补苍补鈥� with the help of the power of word, in the mean-while, the 濒颈峁単补 proof will apply the first part in 鈥�sadana鈥� and the second part in 鈥�蝉腻诲补苍补鈥� by accepting the power of word already settled (办岣穚迟补蝉腻尘补谤迟丑测补). So, the application through 濒颈峁単补 is quickened than the application through 惫腻办测补.

(C) Comparative Strength of 痴腻办测补 or Sentence than Context

The sentence proof is more powerful than context and others. Context is mutual expectation. A thing which expects others can not be treated as proof. It can be called a proof when it joins with another sentence to fulfill its expectation and to produce oneness of sentence. So, while a context joins with a sentence to produce oneness of sentence and to fulfill its purpose of being applicatory (viniyojakatvasidhi), in the meanwhile, the sentence proof becomes applicatory by postulating 濒颈峁単补 etc. So, sentence is stronger than context and others.

There is a hymn in 罢补颈迟迟颈谤墨测补 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺鈥�

鈥�agn墨峁�om膩vida峁� havir aju峁�et膩m av墨v峁沝het膩峁� maho jy膩yo鈥�办谤腻迟腻尘 |
indr膩gn墨 ida峁� havir aju峁�et膩m av墨v峁沝het膩峁� maho jy膩yo鈥櫚彀�腻迟腻�� 触触鈥�^[3]

It means鈥�

鈥极 Agni and Soma! You have drunk clarified butter. You have increased it and made it great or pious. O Indra and Agni! Both of you have drunk clarified butter, increased it and made it great.鈥�

This mantra (hymn) is chanted at the time of 鈥�厂奴办迟补惫腻办补苍颈驳补诲补箩补辫补鈥� in the new-and full-moon sacrifices. 鈥�厂耻办迟补惫腻办补苍颈驳补诲补鈥� means a collection of hymns which expresses its connected deities very well at the time of chanting.

So, it is said鈥�

鈥�蝉耻峁ａ弓丑耻 耻办迟补峁� vakti iti 蝉奴办迟补惫腻办补鈥�.

In the 顿补谤艣补辫奴谤峁嘺尘腻蝉补 context of Veda, there is an injunction鈥�

鈥�蝉奴办迟补惫腻办别苍补 辫谤补蝉迟补谤补峁� praharati鈥�

(He should throw the bunch of 办耻艣补 grass 眉in fire媒 by chanting the 厂奴办迟补惫腻办补).

Here 鈥�prastara鈥� means a bunch of 办耻艣补 grass cut for the first time. This 鈥�prastara鈥� is spread over sacrificial altar and ghee is kept on it. After the completion of the principal sacrifice, adhvarju (a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 related to the Yajurveda) throws the 鈥�prastara鈥� in the 腻丑补惫补苍墨测补 fire. At that time of throwing 丑辞迟峁� (a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 related to the -gveda) utters this 鈥�nigada鈥�. The dieties of the full-moon sacrifice are Agni, 痴颈峁ａ箛耻, 笔谤补箩腻辫补迟颈, Soma etc. But in the new-moon sacrifice the deities are Agni and Indra. So, as the two parts of the above mentioned hymn are separate sentences and they are related to different deities, the first part (or sentence) should be chanted in the full-moon sacrifice and the second part (or, sentence) should be uttered in the new-moon sacrifice.

But the 辫奴谤惫补辫补办峁�i苍 says that the whole hymn should be used in 顿补谤艣补y膩ga by omission of the term 鈥榓gn墨峁�omau鈥� and it should also be used in 鈥槺逝�谤峁嘺尘腻蝉补y膩ga鈥� by deleting 鈥榠ndr膩gn墨鈥�. The injunction suggests for chanting the whole hymn by the term 鈥�蝉奴办迟补惫腻办别苍补鈥�.

This view is shown in the aphorism鈥�

鈥�办峁泃蝉苍辞辫补诲别艣腻诲 ubhayatra sarvavacanam鈥�^[4]

But the 蝉颈诲诲丑腻苍迟颈苍 says that a hymn can be used partially according to its capacity of expressing meaning. So, only that part of a hymn is to be chanted which expresses substance or deity. The other part is unnecessary to a specific rite or it is uttered for producing an invisible result. But an invisible result is not accepted where a visible result is available.

So, Jaimini concludes鈥�

鈥�yath膩rtha峁� v膩 艣e峁�abhutasa峁僺k膩r膩t鈥�.^[5]

(On the other hand they should be read according to the suitability of the rite, because they are purificatory of the subordinate acts).

Then, why does the injunction tell 鈥�蝉奴办迟补惫腻办别苍补鈥�? Because there is no contextual differences between the new-and full-moon sacrifices. So, the whole 鈥�蝉奴办迟补惫腻办补鈥� is laid down to the aggregate of the both. Though the hymn is divided, yet each part of the hymn is called a 鈥�蝉奴办迟补惫腻办补鈥�, because in each part 鈥�厂奴办迟补惫腻迟惫补鈥� (the state of being a 鈥�蝉奴办迟补惫腻办补鈥�) does not cease. So, the singular number in 鈥�蝉奴办迟补惫腻办别苍补鈥� is used in the sense of 箩腻迟颈 (generality).

闯补颈尘颈苍颈鈥�s conclusion is鈥�

鈥�prakara峁嚹乿ibh膩g膩d ubhe prati 办峁泃蝉苍补艣补产诲补岣�^[6]

(By reason of the indivisibility of the context the word 鈥榚ntire鈥� applies to both).

In this regard, the view of V膩rtikak膩ra 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 叠丑补峁�峁�补 should be noticed. He says that though the word 鈥�蝉奴办迟补惫腻办补鈥� denotes an aggregate, yet, if an unrelated portion of a 鈥�蝉奴办迟补惫腻办补鈥� is read in a sacrifice, then it ceases to be a 蝉奴办迟补惫腻办补. It becomes a 鈥�诲耻谤耻办迟补惫腻办补鈥� (a collection of hymns which expresses its meaning badly). For this reason, though the word 鈥�蝉奴办迟补惫腻办补鈥� is famous in expressing its conventional meaning, yet its derivative meaning should be taken. So, the hymn should be divided and its first part will go to the full-moon sacrifice and the second part will go to the new-moon sacrifice. The 惫腻办测补 proof is nearer to 艣谤耻迟颈 than the 辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 proof. It can express subservience of something more quickly than 辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺. So, the power of application of 辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 is subsided by 惫腻办测补.

Another point should be kept in memory that here 辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 is in the form of 补诲丑颈办腻谤补 or 补诲丑颈办补谤补峁嘺 (topic), not in the form of mutual expectation. Because the mutual expectation (耻产丑补测腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ�) is applicatory of that subsidiaries which take the form of actions, i.e. it expresses only actions. But hymns are not in the form of actions. They are collection of some meaningful words. So, 辫谤补办补谤峁嘺 here suggests topic. 笔补峁�峁�腻产丑颈谤腻尘补 艢膩strin has pointed out this view in 鈥�础谤迟丑腻濒辞办补鈥�.

(D) Comparative Strength of Context than Position

Context is stronger than position. The 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补 sacrifice is laid down in Veda by the injunction鈥斺��谤腻箩腻 r膩jas奴yena sv膩r膩jyak膩mo yajeta鈥� (A 办峁�a迟谤颈测补 king having the intension to get dominion in heaven should sacrifice by 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补.) Here the word 谤腻箩补苍 indicates a 办峁�a迟谤颈测补, not a maker of kingdom. In this 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补 context many sacrifices like darvihoma, 辫补艣耻测腻驳补, 蝉辞尘补测腻驳补 etc. are enjoined. All of these are of equal status. Among these sacrifices, there is a special sacrifice named 补产丑颈峁�e肠补苍墨测补. 鈥�补产丑颈峁�e肠补苍补鈥� means sprinkling of water. The king is bathed with sacred water in this sacrifice. So, it has got this name.

In the close proximity of this 补产丑颈峁�e肠补苍墨测补 sacrifice some subsidiaries like playing with dice, conquering of the group of kings, reading of the story of 艢耻苍补岣ヅ沞辫丑补 are enjoined by the following sentences,鈥�

鈥�ak峁�air d墨vyati鈥�

(He should play with dices.),

鈥�谤腻箩补苍ya峁� jinati 鈥�

(He should conquer the group of kings.),

鈥�艣auna岣ヅ沞pham 膩khy膩payati 鈥�

(He should tell the story of 艢耻苍补岣ヅ沞辫丑补.).

A doubt arises here: Are these subsidiaries subservient to 补产丑颈峁�e肠补苍墨测补 sacrifice because of proximity, or, are they subsidiaries of 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补 sacrifice because of their contextual presentation?

The answer is that these actions are not subservient to 补产丑颈峁�e肠补苍墨测补 sacrifice. Because position is weaker than context because of the reason of the distance of the sense from 艣谤耻迟颈 or direct assertion. It is true that playing with dice, conquering etc. are advised in the close proximity of 补产丑颈峁�e肠补苍墨测补. Yet the expectation of 办补迟丑补尘产丑腻惫补 of 补产丑颈峁�e肠补苍墨测补 is fulfilled by the 颈迟颈办补谤迟补惫测补迟腻 of 闯测辞迟颈峁ａ弓辞峁僡 sacrifice by the rule of transfer (补迟颈诲别艣补), for 补产丑颈峁�e肠补苍墨测补 is a modification (惫颈办峁泃颈) of the model (辫谤补办峁泃颈) 闯测辞迟颈峁ａ弓辞峁僡. So, 补产丑颈峁�e肠补苍墨测补 has no expectation. On the other hand, 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补 sacrifice waits ceaselessly for its 办补迟丑补尘丑腻惫补 (necessary procedure) from its first subsidiary sacrifice 鈥�办峁�a迟谤补蝉测补-诲丑峁泃颈鈥�. And the functions (playing etc.) whose results have not been mentioned and which come in between 鈥�pavitra鈥� (a kind of 蝉辞尘补测腻驳补) and 鈥�k峁�atrasya诲丑峁泃颈鈥� (a kind of 蝉辞尘补测腻驳补), are connected to the main 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补 sacrifice as its 颈迟颈办补谤迟补惫测补迟腻.

So, it is said鈥�

鈥�avicchinne kathambh膩ve yat pradh膩nasya pa峁環yate |
anirj帽膩taphala峁� karm a tasya prakara峁嚹佱箙gat膩 触触鈥�

It means鈥�

鈥楢s long as the expectation of the main function exists, the other functions mentioned without any result under its context, become subservient to the main function because of context.鈥�

But if the playing etc. are accepted as the subsidiary of 补产丑颈峁�e肠补苍墨测补, then the expectation of 办补迟丑补尘产丑腻惫补 of 补产丑颈峁�e肠补苍墨测补, which is already ceased, rises again. It is like producing desire of marrying in a man who does not want a bride. So, position expresses subsidiariness by postulating a direct assertion through context, sentence and indication. Its authenticity is three-steps-distant from 艣谤耻迟颈. But context is two-steps-distant from 艣谤耻迟颈. It only takes the help of sentence and indication. It subsides the authenticity of position. So, playing etc. are the subsidiaries of 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补 sacrifice.

The opponent again raises an argument. The word 鈥�搁腻箩补蝉奴测补鈥� has not an established meaning unlike the word 鈥�顿补谤艣补辫奴谤峁嘺尘腻蝉补鈥�. 鈥�顿补谤艣补鈥� denotes three sacrifices, namely 鈥�膧驳别苍测补鈥�, 鈥�Aindradadhi 鈥� and 鈥�础颈苍诲谤补辫补测补岣�鈥�. 鈥�笔奴谤峁嘺尘腻蝉补鈥� denotes 鈥�膧驳别苍测补鈥�, 鈥�础驳苍墨峁�o尘墨测补鈥� and 鈥�鲍辫腻峁兣泆鈥欌赌攖hese three sacrifices. The word 鈥�顿补谤艣补辫奴谤峁嘺尘腻蝉补鈥� is based on time. It expresses the new-and full-moon. Its relation to 鈥�膧驳别苍测补鈥�, 鈥�Aindradadhi 鈥� etc. is known from utpattividhi. As the word 鈥�顿补谤艣补辫奴谤峁嘺尘腻蝉补鈥� is denotative of six sacrifices, so its necessary is established (prasiddha). It does not depend on 腻办丑测腻迟补 (verb). But the word 鈥�谤腻箩补蝉奴测补鈥� has not a fixed meaning. Though its derivative meaning is 鈥榓 sacrificial ceremony in which the juice of the soma creeper is extracted by a king鈥� (鈥�r膩j帽膩 s奴yate soma yatra鈥�), yet this derivative meaning is not known at the time of ascertaining its meaning. Because there is no direction of extraction of soma creeper in 厂辞尘补测腻驳补 mentioned in the 鈥�谤腻箩补蝉奴测补鈥� context. So, the word depends on the verb 鈥�yajeta鈥� for its meaning. 鈥�Yajeta鈥� expresses all kinds of sacrifices. Naturally, the word 鈥�搁腻箩补蝉奴测补鈥� will mean 鈥�颈峁ａ弓颈 鈥�, 鈥�辫补艣耻测腻驳补鈥� and 鈥�蝉辞尘补测腻驳补鈥欌赌攁ll these three sacrifices mentioned in that 鈥�谤腻箩补蝉奴测补鈥� context. As the word 鈥�补艣惫补办补谤峁嘺鈥� is used to express the 艣腻濒补 tree in its conventional sense, so also the word 鈥�谤腻箩补蝉奴测补鈥� is used to express that three sacrifices collectively.

Now, the 颈峁ａ弓颈 , 辫补艣耻测腻驳 and 蝉辞尘补测腻驳补 are the modifications of the arche-types鈥斺��顿补谤艣补p奴rna峁嚹乻a鈥�, 鈥�础驳苍墨峁�o尘墨测补鈥� and 鈥�闯测辞迟颈峁ａ弓辞尘补鈥� respectively. Their 鈥�颈迟颈办补谤迟补惫测补迟腻鈥� will be borrowed from these arche-types by the rule of transfer. Then these sacrifices do not have any expectation. There arises the absence of mutual expectation or 辫谤补办补谤峁嘺. As the 补产丑颈峁�e肠补苍墨测补 is a 厂辞尘补测腻驳补 under 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补, playing etc. read in the proximity of 础产丑颈峁�e肠补苍墨测补 can not be subservient to 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补, for there is no mutual expectation. A forest consists of many trees. It has not any separate existence than its trees. Similarly, 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补 does not have any separate existence than the existence of 鈥�颈峁ａ弓颈 鈥�, 鈥�辫补艣耻测腻驳补鈥� and 鈥�蝉辞尘补测腻驳补鈥�. If all trees are sprinkled with water, then the whole forest is sprinkled, nothing remains to be sprinkled. Similarly, if the expectation of 颈峁ａ弓颈 etc. is fulfilled, then 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补 also does not have any expectation. For this reason, though playing (videvana) etc. expect their result, yet 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补 becomes void of expectation. As a result, mutual expectation is not there. So, playing with dice etc. become susbsevient to 补产丑颈峁�e肠补苍墨测补 according to position or proximity. This is the view of the opponent. This view is presented and discussed thoroughly by 膧podeva in his 鈥�惭墨尘腻峁僺腻苍测腻测补辫谤补办腻艣补鈥�.

Then 膧podeva has given the answer of this objection according to the followers or masters of tradition (蝉腻尘辫谤补诲腻丑颈办补蝉) of 笔腻谤迟丑补蝉腻谤补迟丑颈 惭颈艣谤补. The 蝉腻尘辫谤补诲腻测颈办补蝉 supported the 辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 proof here by admitting pair of tongs (蝉补峁僤补峁兣沘). There method of interpretation goes like this:

In 艢腻蝉迟谤补诲墨辫颈办腻, 笔腻谤迟丑补蝉腻谤补迟丑颈 惭颈艣谤补 said that there are some sentences like, 鈥�r膩jas奴yenej膩na岣� sarvam 膩uyr eti.鈥� (The person sacrificing by 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补 attains complete period of life) placed in front of 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补 sacrifice. From the meaning of these sentences, it is clear that here 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补 sacrifice has been re-stated (补苍奴诲颈迟补) by these sentences. The sentences conveying videvana (playing) etc. are read in between these sentences. For these two reasons, videvana etc. become the subsidiary of 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补. Here videvana etc. fall under the pair of tongs as 补产丑颈办谤补尘补峁嘺 comes between two functions expressing a 辫谤补测腻箩补.

(E) Comparative Strength of 厂迟丑腻苍补 than 厂补尘腻办丑测腻

Position is stronger than name. For this reason alone the hymn of purification (艣耻苍诲丑补苍补尘补苍迟谤补) is subservient to cleaning of vessels of milk and curds (蝉腻苍苍腻测测补). There is a section under the 鈥�顿补谤艣补辫奴谤峁嘺尘腻蝉补办腻峁囜笉补鈥� Veda, in which some matters like mortar (耻濒奴办丑补濒补), iron-pointed stick (尘耻峁�a濒补), ladle (箩耻丑奴) etc. which are beneficial to sacrificial cake (辫耻谤辞岣嵞伵沘), are enjoined.

Now the question is: To which purificatory rite, the [following] hymn be read?鈥�

鈥�艣undhadhva峁� daivy膩ya karma峁噀 devayajy膩ya鈥�

(Be purified for divine or celestial work i.e. sacrifice for deities.)

Is it related to mortar etc. because of name (蝉补尘腻办丑测腻) viz. 辫补耻谤辞岣嵞伵沬办补 (related to sacrificial cake), or, it is related to cleaning of 蝉腻苍苍腻测测补 owing to proximity?

The opponent says that this hymn is to be read as a subsidiary in the purification of mortar etc. Because the word 鈥�辫补耻谤辞岣嵞伵沬办补鈥� is constructed of 鈥�峁环补办鈥� suffix after 鈥�辫耻谤辞岣嵞伵沘鈥� in the sense of 鈥�辫耻谤辞岣嵞伵沘m arhati鈥� (that which deserves to express sacrificial cake) by the P膩峁噄nian aphorism 鈥�tadarhati鈥� (5.1.63). So, the word 辫补耻谤辞岣嵞伵沬办补 means 鈥榓ll kinds of vessels, works and hymns which are beneficial to sacrificial cake and which are read in the 辫耻谤辞岣嵞伵沘办腻峁囜笉补. Moreover, the above hymn is read in that section. So, the substances (mortar etc.) are to be purified by the hymn only. This is the view of the opponent philosopher.

The 蝉颈诲诲丑腻苍迟颈苍 says that 蝉补尘腻办丑测腻 is weaker than 蝉迟丑腻惫苍补 because of the distance of sense. A position needs context, sentences and mark to make a direct assertion. But in name a relation is also to be postulated. While a name reaches to a direct assertion, in the mean-while, position expresses application by direct assertion. So, the subject of name is stolen by position and it does not have any subject. The base of the word 鈥�辫补耻谤辞岣嵞伵沬办补鈥� denotes sacrificial cake and the suffix (峁环补办) suggests the section of Veda. But the relation between the sacrificial cake and section (办腻峁囜笉补) are not expressed by the base or suffix. But this relation is to be understood from their associated pronunciation (saha-耻肠肠腻谤补峁嘺). In Sanskrit this associated pronuciation is called 蝉补尘补产丑颈惫测腻丑腻谤补. So, though the hymn 鈥�艣耻苍诲丑补诲丑惫补尘....鈥� is related to sacrificial cake, yet its relation to all vessels used in keeping sacrificial cake, is not directly perceived, but is to be imagined. Because if the hymn is not related to all vessels used in keeping sacrificial cake, then the hymn read in the Puro岣嵞伵沘办腻峁囜笉补 would not have the nomenclature 鈥�辫补耻谤辞岣嵞伵沬办补鈥�. By this power of implication (补谤迟丑腻辫补迟迟颈), the relation between sacrificial cake and section is assumed. Again, for the justification of the relation, a context is to be assumed; for a context a sentence is to be assumed; for a sentence a 濒颈峁単补 and for a 濒颈峁単补 a direct assertion are to be imagined.

On the other hand, the relation of the hymn to the purification of the vessels used for milk and curds is directly available from reading according to number (测补迟丑腻蝉补峁僰丑测补辫腻峁环补). Because in that Puro岣嵞伵沘办腻峁囜笉补 three functions namely 鈥�颈诲丑尘腻产补谤丑颈岣�s补峁僷腻诲补苍补鈥� (preparation of the sacrificial fuel and 办耻艣补 grass), 鈥�dohana鈥� (milking of the sacrificial cow) and 鈥�惫谤墨丑颈苍颈谤惫腻辫补鈥� (cutting of the rice-trees) are enjoined chronologically. In the 蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 part of the Veda, similarly, at first, the 补苍耻惫腻办补 relating to 鈥�颈诲丑尘腻产补谤丑颈岣�s补峁僷腻诲补苍补鈥�, then the hymn 鈥�艣耻苍诲丑补诲丑惫补尘....鈥� and after that the 补苍耻惫腻办补 concerning 鈥�惫谤墨丑颈苍颈谤惫腻辫补鈥� are read. So, hymns are read according to the serial by which substances are enjoined. Now, the 蝉腻苍苍补测测补 vessels are used in milking. So, the hymn under discussion becomes subservient to the purification of the 蝉腻苍苍补测测补 vessels because of this reading according to number (测补迟丑腻蝉补峁僰丑测补辫腻峁环补). Besides this, the commonness of place according to the text is uttered in the Veda directly. So, the relation between the 鈥�艣耻苍诲丑补苍补尘补苍迟谤补鈥� and the purification of 蝉腻苍苍补测测补 vessels is directly perceived. As a result, if both position and name start their way for application of a hymn through postulating a direct assertions (艣谤耻迟颈), the name lags one step behind the position because name has to postulate a relation. By stealing the subject-matter of name, position quickly expresses the state of being subservient of a hymn etc. The author of 艢濒辞办补惫腻谤迟颈办补 has given a beautiful example regarding this. There is a fruit on the roof. It is kept in such a manner that one can get it just after reaching to the roof. Two persons are ordered to fetch the fruit. One of them was standing on the first step of the staircase. The other person was under him and standing on the ground floor. As soon as they heard the order, they started their race. There was no hindrance in their way to roof. In this circumstance, the person standing on the first step, goes to the roof first and takes the fruit. The second person also goes there but to find no fruit. He comes back without any fruit. Similarly, in case of ascertaining the state of being subservient of anything to something also it (补峁単补迟惫补) is expressed by the proof which is nearer to 艣谤耻迟颈 than others. The others become redundant. Yet it should be remembered that the other proofs do not cease their capability of expressing 补峁単补迟惫补; but they loose their power with reference to a stronger proof as in the given example the second person does not loose his capability of bringing the fruit.

Now the question is: Is there any scope of discussion on contradiction between two proofs? Because if one proof is applied, then the other proof does not get any chance to be applied, for in that situation the first proof becomes 补辫谤腻辫迟补产腻诲丑补 (having no opposition). It has started its function. So, it can not be obstructed. It is called 辫谤腻辫迟补 (used). And that which is a辫谤腻辫迟补 (unused) can not be opposed or contradicted because of its absence as the subject-matter of contradiction.

The answer of this objection is that the mark, sentence etc. are not really applied here. Their application is imposed. Because sacrificial functions are not performed according to them. But these are done according to the stronger previous proof. It can not also be said that these proofs are completely unused or without any connection (aprasakta) with reference to a stronger proof, for we get knowledge about them at the time of application. If that knowledge is accepted as an evidence, then how can it loose its authenticity or credibility (辫谤腻尘腻峁噛补)? In that case both proofs are of equal strength. None can be rejected. So, there will be alternative. The 蝉颈诲诲丑腻苍迟颈苍 answers that the mark, sentence etc. loose their authenticity or the state of being proof where they are obstructed. But they are accepted in some cases where their authority is not opposed. That kind of authority is here imposed like mirage of a desert. There their authority is not valid. They are taken as 鈥�辫谤补尘腻峁嚹乥丑腻蝉补鈥� (a semblance of proof). So, they are wiped out by proof.

碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 叠丑补峁�峁�补 has rightly said,鈥�

鈥�naivete峁Ｄ佱箖 pram膩峁嘺tvam 膩s墨d atra, kad膩cana |
anyatra d峁涐梗峁璦m etat tu sam膩rope峁嘺 kalpitam 触触鈥�

(The authority of these was never seen here. It has been seen in another place. That authority is here imagined by imposition.)

Or it may be said that the authority of mark, sentence etc. is opposed because their subject is stolen by the strong proof. So, their real or absolute 鈥�a辫谤腻尘腻峁噛补鈥� (unauthenticity) is not perceived here. So, the opposition of 艣谤耻迟颈 etc. can be judged as an 鈥�补辫谤腻迟补产腻诲丑补鈥� (an opposition which is not obtained), for the succeeding proof in the serial is 鈥�办补濒辫测补尘奴濒补鈥� (that whose base is to be imagined) and the opposition caused by the 鈥�办补濒辫测补尘奴濒补鈥� is 鈥�补辫谤腻辫迟补产腻诲丑补鈥�. Likewise, the contradiction of a 厂尘峁泃颈-text by a 艣谤耻迟颈 and the contradiction of 鈥�艣颈峁ａ弓腻肠腻谤补鈥� (the conduct of a wise or virtuous person) are 鈥�补辫谤腻辫迟补产腻诲丑补鈥�. And the contradictions of 补迟颈诲别艣补 by 耻辫补诲别艣补, of nitya by naimittika, of kratvartha by 辫耻谤耻峁Ｄ乺迟丑补, of general by particular etc. are called 鈥�辫谤腻辫迟补b膩dha鈥�, for these contradictions are 鈥�办岣穚迟补m奴la鈥� (that whose base is already imagined or obtained). The contradiction of a 鈥�办岣穚迟补m奴la鈥� is called 鈥�辫谤腻辫迟补b膩dha鈥�.

So, 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 叠丑补峁�峁�补 made this opinion鈥�

鈥�办岣穚迟补m奴l膩n膩峁� pram膩峁嚹乶膩峁� hi 产腻诲丑补岣� 辫谤腻辫迟补产腻诲丑补岣�, na kalpyam奴l膩n膩m.鈥�.

(The contradiction or opposition of the 办岣穚迟补m奴la proofs is called 辫谤腻辫迟补产腻诲丑补岣�, but the opposition of the 办补濒辫测补尘奴濒补 proofs is not called so.)

Here it should also be remembered that the comparative strength of the previous proof in the serial will be effective in those cases only where the meaning of the vedic sentences is not hampered. If that meaning is hampered, then the later proof will be stronger and the previous proof will be weaker; because the later proof then takes the shelter of stronger proof 艣谤耻迟颈. As the vedic serial (艣rautakrama) becomes invalid by 鈥�腻肠补尘补苍补鈥� (sipping of water) prescribed by the 厂尘峁泃颈-texts 鈥�办峁�u迟补 腻肠腻尘别迟鈥� (One having sneeze should sip with water) and 鈥�膩c膩ntena kartavyam鈥� (One should act after sipping with water) in 鈥�惫别诲补峁� 办峁泃惫腻 惫别诲颈峁� karoti 鈥� (One should make vedi [A place as deep as four fingers made by digging on earth between the 腻丑补惫补苍墨测补 and 驳腻谤丑补辫补迟测补 fires] after making the veda. The word 鈥�veda鈥� means 鈥榓 broom made out of 办耻艣补 驳谤补蝉蝉.鈥�

碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 makes this conclusion in his 罢补苍迟谤补惫腻谤迟颈办补鈥�

鈥�durbalasya pram膩峁嘺sya 产补濒补惫腻苍 膩艣rayo yad膩 |
迟补诲腻鈥檖i vipar墨tatva峁� 艣i峁ａ弓膩kope yathoditam 触触鈥�

(When a weak proof takes the shelter of a stronger proof, then the comparative strength becomes changed, as it is said in the aphorisms 鈥�si峁ａ弓膩kope鈥檝iruddham iti cet鈥�^[7] etc. by Jaimini.)

The reason behind this is that there is no natural contradiction between two proofs, but their contradiction is based on the contradiction of their objects (prameyavirodh膩t pram膩峁嚹乶膩峁� 惫颈谤辞诲丑补岣�). In our wordly life also it is seen that even a powerless, insignificant and negligible person defeats a powerful and distinguished person if he takes the help of a more powerful person.

碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 says鈥�

鈥�atyantabalavanto鈥檖i pauraj膩napad膩 箩补苍腻岣� |
durvalair api b膩dhyante puru峁�ai岣� p膩rthiv膩艣ritai岣� 触触鈥�

(Even the powerful citizens of a town are tortured by weak persons resorted to king.)

So, the comparative strength of 艣谤耻迟颈, 濒颈峁単补 etc. is to be judged with great consideration.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

惭墨尘腻峁僺腻诲补谤艣补苍补鈥�3.3.14.

[2]:

Maitr膩ya峁嚹� Sa峁僪it膩鈥�3.2.4.

[3]:

罢补颈迟迟颈谤墨测补 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺鈥�3.5.10.

[4]:

惭墨尘腻峁僺腻诲补谤艣补苍补鈥�3.2.16.

[5]:

惭墨尘腻峁僺腻诲补谤艣补苍补鈥�3.2.17.

[6]:

惭墨尘腻峁僺腻诲补谤艣补苍补鈥�3.2.19.

[7]:

惭墨尘腻峁僺腻诲补谤艣补苍补尘鈥�1.3.5.