Verse 2.687

Sanskrit text and transliteration:

प्रामाण्यमनुवादानां न चेत्स्वविषये मतम् ।
पयोगुणस्य सम्बन्धो न प्राप्नोति जुहोतिना ॥ ६८७ ॥

prāmāṇyamanuvādānāṃ na cetsvaviṣaye matam |
payoguṇasya sambandho na prāpnoti juhotinā || 687 ||

English translation of verse 2.687:

If it is held that anuvādas have no validity (independently of injunction) in respect of what they convey, the connection of the substance “milk” with the act of offering cannot take place.

Notes:

Verses (687) to (690) discuss the validity of words (pada) and corroborative statements (arthavāda) which praise what has been enjoined or condemn what has been prohibited. These are treated as anuvādas, because they restate what is already known. According to the Niyogavādin, injunctive texts alone which teach us what to do and what not to do are valid. Inasmuch as individual words and corroborative statements, when taken by themselves, do not fulfil this criterion of validity, they are not, says the Niyogavādin, authoritative independently of injunctive texts.

This argument is wrong. The Niyogavādin must admit that each word conveys its meaning independently of injunction. If this is not acceptable to him, he cannot establish the validity of the injunctive text itself. There is, for example, the injunctive text: “He shall offer milk,” which clearly brings out the connection of the substance “milk” with the act of offering. If the word “milk” fails to convey its meaning on its own, its connection with the act of offering can never take place with the result that the text “He shall offer milk” will not be valid. An arthavāda text like “Vāyu is a swift deity” may form a unitary passage with an injunctive text, viz., “One who wants prosperity should touch a goat relating to Vāyu.” As a corroborative statement of the injunction, it praises Vāyu and suggests that a rite in connection with that God is praiseworthy. But it cannot be denied that an arthavāda conveys its meaning on its own. The sentence, “Vāyu is a swift god,” does convey its meaning when taken by itself independently of the injunction: that is to say, it gives rise to the knowledge relating to Vāyu. It may be that this text is taken as subsidiary to the injunction by way of answer to the question: "What for is this knowledge relating to Vāyu given (kaimartha)?” By way of answering this question it may be said that this arthavāda text is meant for praising an action enjoined in the injunctive text and that it must, therefore, be construed along with it. Ānandagiri sums up the position as follows: padānām-arthavādānāṃ ca niyoganirapekṣameva svārtham pratipādya paścāt kaimarthakyavaśena niyoga-anupraveśābhyupagamādityarthaḥ.