365bet娱乐

This injunction of exclusion (辫补谤颈蝉补峁僰丑测腻惫颈诲丑颈) is of two kinds viz. direct or directly stated or expressed (艣谤补耻迟墨) and indirect or metaphorical or implied (濒腻办峁�a峁噄办墨).

When a sentence contains the particle 鈥�eva鈥� which means the idea of the exclusion of things other than the mentioned things, it is said to contain the direct exclusion.

For example,

鈥�atra hi eva 膩vapanti鈥�

(Indeed, here only [they] insert [new words]).

膧惫腻辫补 means addition or insertion (辫谤补办峁�e辫补, samuccaya) of some new words and 耻诲惫腻辫补 means omission or deletion (耻诲诲丑腻谤补, 苍颈惫峁泃迟颈) of some existing words. Now, the question is where these 腻惫腻辫补 and 耻诲惫腻辫补 are to be followed? Is there any rule that these two techniques should be practised in the case of stanzas occuring in all rites or these are to be followed in the case of only a few?

There is a sentence occuring in connection with the 辫补惫补尘腻苍补 谤颈迟别鈥�

鈥�tr墨峁噄 ha vai yaj帽asya udar膩峁噄 yad 驳腻测补迟谤墨 产峁沨补迟墨 补苍耻峁ａ弓耻产丑. atra hi eva 膩vapanti, ata eva udvapanti 鈥�

(There are three bellies of a sacrifice. These are 驳腻测补迟谤墨, 产峁沨补迟墨 and 补苍耻峁ａ弓耻产丑. Indeed, here only they insert new words, so they delete the existing words).

This sentence tells us that 腻惫腻辫补 and 耻诲惫腻辫补 are to be performed in the 辫补惫补尘腻苍补 rite in which hymns composed in the 驳腻测补迟谤墨, 产峁沨补迟墨 and 补苍耻峁ａ弓耻产丑 metres are to be recited. The word eva in the sentence expresses the exclusion of rites other than 辫补惫补尘腻苍补 rite in which hymns composed in the 驳腻测补迟谤墨, 产峁沨补迟墨 and 补苍耻峁ａ弓耻产丑 metres are to be recited. The word eva in the vedic sentence expresses the exclusion of rites other than 辫补惫补尘腻苍补 and of stanzas in metres other than the specified ones from the sphere of 腻惫腻辫辞诲惫腻辫补. Therefore, the above injunction is an example of 艣谤补耻迟墨 辫补谤颈蝉补峁僰丑测腻.

But the injunction 鈥�辫补帽肠补 辫补帽肠补nakh膩 bhak峁�y膩岣�鈥� does not contain the particle 鈥�eva鈥�. Here, the exclusion of 鈥�辫补帽肠补辫补帽肠补nakhabhak峁�a峁嘺鈥� is not directly expressed by 鈥�eva鈥�. It is merely implied. So, this sentence becomes an example of indirect exclusion (濒腻办峁�a峁噄办墨 辫补谤颈蝉补峁僰丑测腻).

Because of the absence of a word which expresses the idea of exclusion, the indirect injunction of exclusion is vitiated by three defects. These defects are:

1. 艣谤耻迟补丑腻苍颈 or the abandonment of what is directly stated or the expressed sense,
2. 补艣谤耻迟补办补濒辫补苍腻 or the assumption of what has not been directly stated and
3. 辫谤腻辫迟补产腻诲丑补 or the contradiction or rejection of what has acrued [accrued?].

As the injunction 鈥�辫补帽肠补 辫补帽肠补nak膩 bhak峁�y膩岣�鈥� discards its appararent meaning i.e. eating of the flesh of five five-nailed animals and it dissuades us from eating of the flesh of animals other than the specified five-nailed animals, it is vitiated by 艣谤耻迟补丑腻苍颈 or 蝉惫腻谤迟丑补迟测腻驳补.

Secondly, the injunction gives the meaning of 鈥�a辫补帽肠补辫补帽肠补nakhabhak峁�a峁嘺niv峁泃iti, but this sense is not expressed by any word in the above injunction, but it is to be assumed or presumed. Thus, the defect 补艣谤耻迟补办补濒辫补苍腻 or 辫补谤腻谤迟丑补蝉惫墨办腻谤补 arises.

Thirdly, this injunction prevents us from eating of the flesh of animals other than the specified five five-nailed animals. A man eats that flesh from his natural addiction. This eating is an obtained matter. But this injunction forbids this 鈥�a辫补帽肠补辫补帽肠补nakhabhak峁�a峁嘺鈥� also.

It should be noticed that the defects 艣谤耻迟补丑腻苍颈 and 补艣谤耻迟补办补濒辫补苍腻 belong to word, because they consist in abandoning the direct meaning of words and assuming some other instead of it.

But the defect 辫谤腻辫迟补产腻诲丑补 has nothing to do with words and their meanings, but it consists in the rejection of a matter which is established by other causes i.e. appetite, natural addiction etc. So this defect is related to meaning.