365bet娱乐

[Full title: Categories dependent on injunctions鈥攊.e. (1) mantra, (2) 苍腻尘补诲丑别测补, (3) 苍颈峁�e诲丑补 and (4) 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 of Veda]

How much the 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 had shown their minuteness in interpreting the vedic injunctions is proved by the discussions presented in the previous chapters. To make a sacrifice accurate and flawless their endeavour is truly praiseworthy. Definition of injunction, different types of injunctions with their related subjects, category of adhyayanavidhi and 艣谤补惫补峁嘺惫颈诲丑颈 etc. have been discussed.

According to the 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 injunctions are the main category of all vedic sentences. The other categories i.e. mantra, 苍腻尘补诲丑别测补, 苍颈峁�e诲丑补 and 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 of Veda, are dependent on injunctions. For the application of mantra etc. one has to search for an injunction. Without the injunction, mantra etc. do not express any meaning. They are closely related to injunctions. Now, these are discussed briefly to understand their nature and their dependence on injunctions.

1. Mantra:

Mantras (hymns) are those that call to memory matters related to sacrificial performance. The remembrance of sacrificial deities, substances etc. is to be done by chanting the hymns. This view has been discussed in the 8th chapter of this thesis. Mantras are chanted for producing some visible result i.e. remembrance of sacrificial matters. But in some cases the invisible result is also accepted where the visible result is impossible. For examples, 鈥�kavac膩ya hum鈥�, 鈥�netratray膩ya vau峁�a峁�鈥�, 鈥�astr膩ya pha峁�鈥� etc. These hymns are not meaningless because these are uttered for creating an invisible result. In fact, the injunction 鈥�蝉惫腻诲丑测腻测辞鈥檇丑测别迟补惫测补岣�鈥� includes all kinds of sentences of the Veda. So, no part of the Veda is inessential. Therefore, though the above mentioned hymns do not call to memory matters connected to sacrificial performance, yet they produce some invisible result which results in the completion of sacrifice indirectly.

2. 狈腻尘补诲丑别测补:

Injunction enjoins some matter. N膩madhyea (name) defines that matter. For example, in the injunction, 鈥�耻诲产丑颈诲腻 yajeta pa艣uk膩ma岣�鈥� (One desirous of cattle should sacrifice with Udbhid.), the word udbhid is the name of a sacrifice and this word specifies the matter to be enjoined. For getting a specific fruit, a certain sacrifice is enjoined by the above sentence, because it is not established by any other proof that the Udbhid sacrifice leads to the result of cattle. As a sacrifice in general can not be enjoined, a particular sacrifice alone is enjoined. Now, if anyone asks, 鈥榃hat is that particular sacrifice?鈥� The answer is the sacrifice in the form of Udbhid. The relation between the sacrifice and the name Udbhid is grammatical co-ordination (蝉腻尘腻苍腻诲丑颈办补谤补峁噛补). So, the verbal understanding of the above mentioned injunction is鈥攂y means of the Udbhid sacrifice, he should bring into the effect of cattle.

There are four reasons for understanding a word as 苍腻尘补诲丑别测补. These are:

1. the fear of admitting an indication of possession,
2. the fear of split in the sentence,
3. a scriptural passage declaring of it and
4. designation or representation with it.

(a) The fear of admitting an indication of possession (尘补迟惫补谤迟丑补-濒补办峁�a峁嚹乥丑补测补):

狈腻尘补诲丑别测补 is accepted in the word udbhid because of 尘补迟惫补谤迟丑补濒办峁�a峁嚹乥丑补测补. To explain: By the sentence, 鈥�耻诲产丑颈诲腻 yajeta pa艣uk膩ma岣�鈥� a sacrifice is not enjoined for a result and a subsidiary (驳耻峁嘺) is not enjoined with reference to that sacrifice, because such interpretation would lead to the split in the sentence.

In that case the meaning of that injunction will be鈥�

鈥�耻诲产丑颈诲腻 gu峁噀na 测腻驳补峁� 产丑腻惫补测别迟, y膩gena ca 辫丑补濒补峁� 产丑腻惫补测别迟鈥�

(One should produce the sacrifice with the help of the subsidiary udbhid and he should produce the result by that sacrifice).

If it is accepted that the subsidiary is enjoined only for the sacrifice to avoid the fallacy of splitting of sentences, then the word 鈥�phala鈥� will be redundant. The word 鈥�phala鈥� can not be accepted as a restated word, because the Udbhid sacrifice is not enjoined by any other vedic sentence. So, it is unobtained (补辫谤腻辫迟补).

As a result of this, no subsidiary is enjoined by the sentence

鈥�耻诲产丑颈诲腻 yajeta pa艣uk膩ma岣�鈥�.

To avoid the fallacy of splitting of sentence and the redundancy or meaninglessness of the words 鈥�udbhid鈥� and 鈥�phala鈥� with regard to the interpretation of the above vedic sentence, we have to accept the injunction 鈥�耻诲产丑颈诲腻...鈥� as a 惫颈艣颈峁ａ弓补惫颈诲丑颈 (qualified injunction). So, the verbal understanding of this injunction is: One should acquire cattle by means of a sacrifice, which is qualified by the name udbhid. In a qualified injunction there exists an indication of possession (matvartha-濒补办峁�a峁嚹�). So, if we do not admit name in udbhid, then we have to take resort to matvartha濒补办峁�a峁嚹� which is a fallacy related to term (辫补诲补诲辞峁�a).

(b) The fear of split in the sentence (惫腻办测补产丑别诲补产丑补测补):

In the sentence, 鈥�肠颈迟谤补测腻 yajeta pa艣uk膩ma岣�鈥� (One desires of cattle should sacrifice with 肠颈迟谤腻), the word 肠颈迟谤腻 is the name of a rite from the fear of a split in the sentence. This sentence does not enjoin a sacrifice qualified by an accessory.

Because the subsidiaries are enjoined by the sentence,

鈥�dadhi madhu payo 驳丑峁泃补峁� 诲丑腻苍腻 耻诲补办补峁� 迟补峁囜笉耻濒腻蝉 tatsa峁僺峁涐梗峁璦峁� pr膩j膩patyam鈥�

(Curds, honey, milk, ghee, grains, water, rice鈥攁 mixture of all those [constitutes the oblation] in honour of 笔谤补箩腻辫补迟颈).

So, it is improper to think that the sentence, 鈥�肠颈迟谤补测腻...鈥� should enjoin a sacrifice qualified by the subsidiary. If it is said that this sentence enjoins fruit and accessory both, then there will be split of sentence. So, the word 肠颈迟谤腻 is a name of a sacrifice. The verbal understanding of the sentence is: 鈥�肠颈迟谤腻y膩gena 辫补艣耻峁� 产丑腻惫补测别迟鈥� (By means of Citra sacrifice one should acquire cattle). Here the split of sentence does not arise. Because there is a relation of grammatical co-ordination (蝉腻尘腻苍腻诲丑颈办补谤峁噛补) between 肠颈迟谤腻 and sacrifice. Both denote the same matter. Various substances are used in this sacrifice. So, this sacrifice is rightly designated as 肠颈迟谤腻 because the word 肠颈迟谤腻 implies variety of things.

(c) The character of Name from a scriptural passage declaring of it (迟补迟辫谤补办丑测补艣腻蝉迟谤补):

The word 鈥�agnihotra鈥� in the sentence, 鈥�补驳苍颈丑辞迟谤补峁� juhoti 鈥� (He should offer the Agnihotra) expresses the name of the rite because there is a scriptural passage declaratory of the subsidiary matter of the Agnihotra sacrifice. The above sentence is not a 驳耻峁嘺vidhi.

Because the subsidiary matter has already been established by this text viz.

鈥�yad 膩havan墨ye juhoti鈥�

(When he sacrifices in the 腻丑补惫补苍墨测补 fire).

So, the locative 叠补丑耻惫谤墨丑颈 compound in the form of 鈥榓gnau hotram asmin鈥� (In this the sacrifice is in the fire) can not be accepted. The dative 叠补丑耻惫谤墨丑颈 compound in the form of 鈥榓gnaye hotram asmin鈥� can not also be acknowledged to get the deity fire as its accessory. Because the deity fire of this sacrifice has been established by another scriptural passage. Which is that passage?

According to 艢补产补谤补 it is:

鈥�yad agnaye ca praj膩pataye ca 蝉腻测补峁� juhoti鈥�

(When to Agni and 笔谤补箩腻辫补迟颈 [he] sacrifices in the evening).

But P膩rthas膩rathimi艣ra and others choose the hymn,

鈥�agnir jyotir jyotir 补驳苍颈岣� 蝉惫腻丑补鈥�

(Agni is light, light is Agni, hail).

Actually, the first sentence enjoins 笔谤补箩腻辫补迟颈 as the deity and it refers to Agni as having been already laid down by some other sentence. It is an injunction about 笔谤补箩腻辫补迟颈 and it contains only an 补苍耻惫腻诲补 or subsequent allusion about Agni. If one sentence lays down two deities, then it will lead to gaurava (cumbrousness). If we want to secure 濒腻驳丑补惫补 (simplicity or conciseness), then we must admit that the sentence 鈥�yad agnaye...鈥� lays down the deity 笔谤补箩腻辫补迟颈.

Therefore, the proper other sentence (艣膩str膩ntara) laying down the deity Agni is:

鈥�agnir jyotir jyotir 补驳苍颈岣� 蝉惫腻丑腻鈥�.

It should be mentioned that the deity 笔谤补箩腻辫补迟颈 can not annul the deity Agni enjoined by the hymn:

鈥�agnir jyotir...鈥�.

Because only praj膩pati is not enjoined in the sentence 鈥�yad agnaye...鈥� but it enjoins 笔谤补箩腻辫补迟颈 in addition to Agni which is established in the hymn:

鈥�agnir 箩测辞迟颈岣�...鈥�

It can not also be said that both deities are enjoined by the sentence:

鈥�yad agnaye...鈥�

Because it is less laborious to admit that the sentence 鈥�yad agnaye...鈥� enjoins 笔谤补箩腻辫补迟颈 alone as combined with that Agni, after having further alluded to Agni who is established by another passage, than admitting the enjoining of both as combined.

Similarly, the word 鈥�samidh鈥� etc. in 鈥�samidho yajoti鈥� (He should sacrifice to Samidh.) etc. are the names of sacrifices because of this 鈥�迟补迟辫谤补办丑测补艣腻蝉迟谤补鈥�.

The deities Samidh and others of fore-sacrifices are obtained from the hymn,

鈥�蝉补尘颈诲丑补岣� samidho agna 膩jyasya vyantu鈥�

(May the fire-sticks severally, [O] Agni, partake of ghee).

(d) The character of Name from designation with it (迟补诲惫测补辫补诲别艣补):

The word 鈥�艣测别苍补鈥� denotes the name of a sacrifice on account of the designation of the rite with it in the injunction, 鈥�艣yenen膩bhicaran yajeta鈥� (One desirous of practising hostile magic should sacrifice with the 艣测别苍补 sacrifice).

Because there is an eulogy i.e.

鈥�yath膩 vai 艣yeno nipaty膩datte evam 补测补峁� dvi峁�anta峁� bhr膩t峁泇ya峁� nipaty膩date鈥�

(As, indeed a falcon, swooping down, seizes [its prey], so this, swooping down, seizes the hating enemy).

Here, the pronoun 鈥�ayam鈥� (idam = this) can not denote the falcon because of the impossibility of its analogy with the same matter expressed by the word 艣测别苍补. For an analogy at least two matters are necessary. So, the pronoun 鈥�idam鈥� denotes a sacrifice. Therefore, the term 鈥�艣测别苍别苍补鈥� used in 鈥�艣yenen膩bhicaran yajeta鈥� must deonote the 艢测别苍补 sacrifice because of designation of that rite with it.

3. Ni峁�edha (Prohibition)

Prohibition is a sentence which turns away a man from doing some action. Injunction creates an instigation to do something. So it serves as an instigator. It instigates a man to do sacrifice etc. The prohibition, on the other hand, intimates negative instigation or determent. For example, 鈥�na 办补濒补帽箩补峁� 产丑补办峁�a测别迟 鈥� (One should not eat poisoned meat). This sentence prohibits a man from eating of poisoned meat which is the means of the greatest evil or highly undesirable result.

The negative particle in a prohibition expresses the meaning of determent by its secondary power (濒补办峁�a峁嚹�). The meaning of the root can not be construed with the meaning of the negative; for it is subordinate to the objective urge expressed by the verbality in the suffix. The sense of the suffix alone is construed with the meaning of the negative particle. Here it is to be also remembered that the meaning of the negative term is not connected to the objective urge (腻谤迟丑墨产丑腻惫补苍腻), but it is connected to the verbal urge (艣腻产诲墨产丑腻惫补苍腻). Because the objective urge is subordinate to instigation which is expressed by the element of the optative. But the verbal urge is the principal in relation to all.

But if there is any obstacle to the construction of the sense of the suffix with the meaning of the negative, then the meaning of the root itself is connected with the meaning of the negative. For example, 鈥�nek峁�etodyantam 膩dityam鈥� (He should not see the rising Sun). This sentence is stated after making the introduction with 鈥�tasya vratam鈥� (His vow is). This section of the Veda deals with the vows of a graduate student. There are some actions which are to be performed by a graduate. But not seeing is not a matter to be performed. So, in 鈥楬e should not see鈥�, the resolution of not seeing which is the opposite to the root-sense of seeing, is conveyed by the negative by means of indication. One can perform a resolution.

So, the verbal understanding of the above sentence is:

鈥�膩dityavi峁�ayak膩n墨k-峁�a峁嘺峁�a峁僰alpena 产丑腻惫补测别迟鈥�:

(By the resolution of not seeing with regard to the Sun he should bring into existence).

The purpose of this resolution is the destruction of sin. Thus the previous sentence 鈥�tasya vratam鈥� is syntactically connected with the subsequent sentence (鈥�苍别办峁�e迟补...鈥�). Here the meaning of the negative particle is called 鈥�辫补谤测耻诲腻蝉补鈥�.

There is another obstacle which is the contingency of option (vikalpa-prasakti) in the sentences like:

鈥�yajati峁�u ye yaj膩maha峁� karoti 苍腻苍耻测腻箩别峁�u鈥�

(He utters 鈥�ye yaj膩mahe鈥� in all sacrifices [yajati], but not in after-sacrifices).

Here the meaning of the suffix is not connected with the meaning of the negative particle. If it is connected with the meaning of the negative, then in the after-sacrifices there would be the prohibition of the hymn 鈥�ye yaj膩mahe鈥�. Prohibition must be preceded by the establishment by some text of what is prohibited, because only an established matter can be prohibited.

And the establishment is from the scriptural text,

鈥�yajati峁�u ye yaj膩maha峁� karoti 鈥�.

An option is accepted with regard to the prohibition of a scritural text by another text, but an annulment (产腻诲丑补) is not accepted there. So, the prohibition in 鈥�anuy膩je峁�u ye yaj膩maha峁僴a karoti 鈥� can not annul or set aside the 辫谤腻辫迟颈 (establishment) of 鈥�ye yaj膩mahe鈥� in the after-sacrifices, because such establishment proceeds from another scriptural text. A man may have some evil passion to the murder of a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺. Passion (谤腻驳补) is thus the basis or root of the murder of a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺. The prohibition 鈥�br膩hma峁噊 na hantavya岣�鈥� (One should not kill a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺) rightly annuls the passion and sets aside the possibility of killing a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺. A scriptural text is stronger than passion; it properly annuls passion. But in the case under discussion, the opposition is between two scriptural texts viz. 鈥�yajati峁�u ye yaj膩maha峁� karoti 鈥� which enjoins the hymn 鈥�ye yaj膩mahe鈥� in all sacrifices, and 鈥�anuy膩je峁�u ye yaj膩maha峁� na karoti 鈥�, which forbids it in the case of the after-sacrifices. Both are equally strong. So, one can not with propriety annul the other. Therefore, one has to admit option between these two scriptural texts.

But an option is not proper. Because it leads to alternative unauthori-tativeness accruing to a text. When one follows the text 鈥�ye yaj膩maha峁�鈥� in after-sacrifices, the text viz. 鈥�苍腻苍耻测腻箩别峁�u...鈥� can not possibly have authoritativeness like the text referring to barley becomes unauthoritative, when one performs a sacrifice with rice-grains. Moreover, a double invisible result is to be assumed, because even both injunction and prohibition are made for the benefit of a man. So, the meaning of the negative particle here is not prohibition, but it means only exclusion. Consequently, the purport of the prohibition here is: In sacrifices different from the after-sacrifices one should utter the hymn 鈥�ye yaj膩mahe鈥�, because the negative metaphorically signifies sacrifices different from the after-sacrifices. So, there is no scope of option.

Eight Defects of Option

If there is any possibility of justification otherwise, the option is not admitted. Because this option is vitiated by eight defects. For example, if the performance is first with rice grains, then the authority of the text prescribing barley, consisting in an inducement to utilize its primary meaning, is abandoned, and its unauthoritativeness, in the form of a lack of inducement to utilize that meaning, is admitted. If the performance is done with barley which was first abandoned is admitted, and its unauthoritativeness that was admitted is discarded. So the text prescribing barley is subject to four defects.

Similarly, if barley is first used, the authority of the text prescribing rice grains is abandoned, and that unauthoritativeness of the text which takes the form of a lack of inducement to utilize its primary meaning, is admitted. If rice grains are used, then the abandoned authority of the text prescribing rice grains is admitted, and its admitted unauthoritativeness is discarded. So, the text prescribing rice grains is also subject to four defects. Thus an option is vitiated by eight defects. So, option is generally avoided.

Reasons for Accepting Option

Option is accepted only for two reasons. Firstly, it is admitted sometimes due to things having a common purpose, that is, doing the same function. For example, there is an option between rice and barley. Both rice and barley can produce the cake. Secondly, option is sometimes admitted due to a scriptural text.

For example, in the sentence, 鈥�产峁沨补迟 辫峁涐梗峁环补峁� bhavati鈥�^[1] (The 辫峁涐梗峁环补 should consist of the 产峁沨补迟), a hymn called 辫峁涐梗峁环补, which is made up of verses called 产峁沨补迟-蝉腻尘补苍, is enjoined, while in the another sentence, 鈥�谤补迟丑补苍迟补谤补峁� 辫峁涐梗峁环补峁� bhavati 鈥�^[2] (The 辫峁涐梗峁环补 should consist of the rathantara), another hymn called 辫峁涐梗峁环补, made up of verses called rathantara-蝉腻尘补苍, is enjoined. The 产峁沨补迟-辫峁涐梗峁环补 and rathantara-辫峁涐梗峁环补 are meant to produce different invisible results. So, they do not serve an indentical purpose.

Yet there is an option between them because of the strength of the scriptural statement,

鈥淭丑别 辫峁涐梗峁环补 should either be composed of the 产峁沨补迟 or it should be composed of the rathantara鈥�.

Now, we may come to the topic under discussion. The negative particle in 鈥�苍腻苍耻测腻箩别峁�u鈥� signifies exclusion (辫补谤测耻诲腻蝉补). In some cases, even on the contingency of option, prohibition (辫谤补迟颈峁�e诲丑补) is to be resorted to owing to there being no other way.

For example, there is a prohibition in the Veda,

鈥�n膩tir膩tre 峁�o岣峚艣颈苍a峁� g峁沨峁嚹乼i鈥�

(He should not take the 峁�o岣峚艣颈苍 [a kind of cup to hold the soma] in the 础迟颈谤腻迟谤补).

There is also an injunction,

鈥�atir膩tre 峁�o岣峚艣颈苍a峁� g峁沨峁嚹乼i 鈥�

(He should take the 峁�o岣峚艣颈苍 in the 础迟颈谤腻迟谤补).

Though here option arises, yet the negative does not signifie exclusion because of its impossibility. The negative particle can not be connected with the meaning of 峁�o岣峚艣颈苍, for in that case the sentence will give the meaning,  鈥淚n the 础迟颈谤腻迟谤补 he should take something different from the 峁�o岣峚艣颈苍鈥� which contradicts to the direct injunction. The negative particle can not also be connected with the meaning of the word 础迟颈谤腻迟谤补. Because then the sentence will mean, 鈥業n sacrifices different from the 础迟颈谤腻迟谤补 he should take the 峁�o岣峚艣颈苍鈥�, which also contradicts to the injunction. So, the negative particle here means prohibition鈥攖his is to be accepted because there is no other way. Actually, here the option is admitted i.e. sometimes one may take the 峁�o岣峚艣颈苍 in the 础迟颈谤腻迟谤补 or he may not sometimes take it in the 础迟颈谤腻迟谤补. Because use and non-use of the 峁�o岣峚艣颈苍 are contradictory to each other. So, both of them can not be resorted to in the same performance.

4. Arthav膩da (Corroborative Statement)

A corroborative statement (补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补) is a sentence, which aims at either the praise or glorification, or blame or censure of a rite. It indicates a purposeful matter. It does not have its own purpose. It only conveys by indication (濒补办峁�a峁嚹�) the praise or censure of a matter to be enjoined or a matter to be prohibited. If this corroborative statement expresses its own meaning, then it will be useless. There will arise purposelessness. Because the Veda is for the purpose of action. One can not say that the purposelessness of the corroborative statement is desirable because the entire Veda leads to matters with purpose by the power of the adhyanavidhi, 鈥楾he Veda should be studied鈥�. Not a single word is purposeless in the Veda. So, the corroborative statements also serve some important purpose i.e. praise or censure.

These statement are of four kinds, being divided into condemnation, eulogy, heroic performance and past incident.

(a) An instance of condemnatory corroborative statement is,

鈥淗e who bestows silver, which is produced from tears, in the sacrifice called Barhis, has lamentation in his home before the lapse of a year.鈥�

(b) An instance of eulogistic corroborative statement is:

鈥淗e who knows thus has a shining face.鈥�

(c) Heroic performance (辫补谤补办峁泃颈) means a corroborative statement which tells that a particular work was performed by a great personage.

For example,

鈥淔ire desired, 鈥楲et me be a voracious eater among the gods鈥�.鈥�

(d) Past incident (辫耻谤腻办补濒辫补) is that corroborative statement which expresses something that has been narrated by another; for example, the passage,

鈥淗e cursed it, saying, 鈥楳ay people kill you whenever they have a mind to (or, by various devices鈥�)!鈥�

Among these, the condemnatory corroborative statement praises the thing enjoined through condemning the things not enjoined by injunction. Since the sentence 鈥�a艣ruja峁� hi 谤补箩补迟补峁� yo barhi峁�i dad膩ti鈥� 辫耻谤腻鈥檚ya sa峁僾atsar膩d g峁沨e rudanti鈥�^[3] praises the thing enjoined i.e. prohibition of giving silver, by censuring of silver.

The other three kinds of the corroborative statements directly demonstrates eulogy. The sentence 鈥�v膩yur vai k峁�epi峁ａ弓h膩 诲别惫补迟腻...鈥�^[4] suggests that the Wind, being swift in movement, is an exceedingly laudable deity, and so a rite which is performed for the deity Wind, is praiseworthy. The 辫耻谤腻办补濒辫补 and 辫补谤补办峁泃颈 sentences signify that as such and such sacrifices had been done by the great personage or deities in the past, these sacrifices should certainly be performed by other sacrificers even today.

The corroborative statement again can be divided into three categories. These are 驳耻峁嘺v膩da, 补苍耻惫腻诲补 and 产丑奴迟腻谤迟丑补惫腻诲补. The previous division was based on the nature of 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补. The basis of the second classification is whether the actual content of 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 is contradicted by another means of proof, or is supported by it, or is neither contradicted nor supported.

When the content of an 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 is contradicated by another means of proof, it is designated as 驳耻峁嘺v膩da.

For example,

鈥�腻诲颈迟测辞 测奴辫补岣�鈥�

(The sacrificial post is the Sun).

The sacrificial post is used to tie the animal which is to be immolated in it. So, the sacrificial post can never be the Sun. Its identity with the Sun is contradicated by our direct perception. So, the primary meaning of the 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 is discarded and we take resort to a new meaning by indication. Metaphorically the above sentence means that the sacrificial post is as brilliant as the Sun. This 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 indicates a quality. So it is called 驳耻峁嘺v膩da.

If the subject-matter conveyed by the 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 is established or known from some other means of proof, it is called 补苍耻惫腻诲补. Here the matter known from another source of knowledge is merely repeated.

For example,

鈥�agnir himasya bhe峁�ajam鈥�

(Fire is a remedy against cold).

We know from our direct perception that fire is opposed to cold. So, the above example is nothing but a repetition of our perceptual experience.

The bh奴t补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 conveys a thing happened in the past. The subject-matter of it is real because of its occurrence in the past. So, it is not contradicated with another means of proof.

For example,

鈥�indro v峁泃r膩ya vajram udayacchat鈥�

(Indra raised the thunderbolt for [striking] 痴峁泃谤补).

The nature of these three 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 has been precisely described in the following Sanskrit 惫别谤蝉别鈥�

鈥�virodhe 驳耻峁嘺v膩da岣� 蝉测腻诲 补苍耻惫腻诲辞鈥�惫补诲丑腻谤颈迟别 |
产丑奴迟腻谤迟丑补惫腻诲补s tad诲丑腻苍腻d 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补s 迟谤颈诲丑腻 尘补迟补岣� ||

By this forgoing discussion, it is proved that the hymns, names, prohibitions and corroborative statements are dependent on injunctions for their authoritativeness.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

罢补颈迟迟颈谤墨测补-产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 I. 2. ii 4.

[2]:

艢atapatha Br膩hma峁嘺 鈥擵.4. V.7

[3]:

罢补颈迟迟颈谤墨测补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻. I. 4. i 2.

[4]:

罢补颈迟迟颈谤墨测补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻. II. 1. i 1.