Verse 3.1.5

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.1.5:

संश्लेषमात्रं बध्नातिर्यदि स्यात्तु विवक्षितः ।
शक्त्याश्रये ततो लिङ्गं प्रमाणाद्यनुशासनम् ॥ ५ ॥

saṃśleṣamātraṃ badhnātiryadi syāttu vivakṣitaḥ |
śaktyāśraye tato liṅgaṃ pramāṇādyanuśāsanam || 5 ||

5. Even if the meaning of the root √bandh is nothing more than contact (with the sacrificial post) the very fact that killing etc. are taught as the next step is an indication that an efficient thing is to be taken.

Commentary

The author now points out that there is an indication on the basis of which a substitute can be allowed.

[Read verse 5 above]

[Even if it is maintained that the root √bandh means nothing more than contact (with the sacrificial post and not loss of independence) the fact that killing etc. are taught as the next step is an indication that the animal must be well tied to the post. Therefore, something which is fit to be used as a post must be taken. Khadira has this fitness or capacity, but if it is not available, something else which has this capacity must be substituted. Thus, on the view that a word denotes the universal, the use of a substitute becomes justifiable in three ways: (1) on the basis of the meaning of the word (padārtha) as shown in verse 3 where it was said that the meaning of the word, the universal, stands for something which has the required power, (2) on the basis of sentence-meaning (vākyārtha) as shown in verse 4 where it was said that the word must convey something which has the capacity to help in the accomplishment of the main action conveyed by the sentence and (3) on the basis of context (prakaraṇa) as shown in the present verse which says that a substitute must be allowed if one takes into consideration the other acts like killing which are taught in the same context.

Here Helārāja mentions two further arguments in order to justify the use of a substitute. The first one is called: asambhavaniyamatyāgaḥ. An injunction like khādire badhnāti must not be understood as an asambhavaniyama, that is, a restrictive injunction (niyama) making alternatives impossible (asambhava). The second argument is called niyama-mātratyāga. The injunction in question is so interpreted that its positive aspect is retained; that is, one understands from it that the animal should be tied to a post. One rejects the negative or restrictive aspect of it. In other words, one rejects the restriction that the post should necessarily be made of khadira wood. By adopting these two arguments, one avoids going against scriptural injunction, because one follows the positive aspect of it, eveh if one rejects its negative or restrictive aspect.]