Verse 3.1.69-70

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.1.69-70:

अपूर्वस्य विधेयत्वात्प्राधान्यमवसीयते ।
विहितस्य परार्थत्वात्वाच्छेषभावः प्रतीयते ॥ ६९ ॥
संमार्गस्य विधेयत्वादन्यत्र विहिते ग्रहे ।
विधिवाक्ये श्रुता सङ्ख्या लक्षणाया न बाध्यते ॥ ७० ॥

apūrvasya vidheyatvātprādhānyamavasīyate |
vihitasya parārthatvātvāccheṣabhāvaḥ pratīyate || 69 ||
saṃmārgasya vidheyatvādanyatra vihite grahe |
vidhivākye śrutā saṅkhyā lakṣaṇāyā na bādhyate || 70 ||

69. The unknown (apūrva) is to be considered important as it is to be taught; the known (vihita} is to be considered secondary, as it exists for something else.

70. As (in the sentence in question) cleansing is to be taught and considering that the vessels are taught elsewhere (for the first time) the number found in the injunctive sentence is not to be rejected in (the interpretation) of the confirmatory sentence.

Commentary

The author now adopts another argument and reaches the same conclusion.

[Read verse 69-70 above]

[The question which is being discussed here is when the meaning expressed by the suffix, such as number, is significant and when it is not. So far, the question was discussed on the basis of the nature of the meaning conveyed by the suffix. Now, it is being discussed from the point of view of the function of the sentence. That which is vidheya, that is to be primarily conveyed by the sentence is the new feature and that is the important thing. That which is already made known elsewhere is mentioned in order to convey something else through it. It is only restated (anūdita). In the sentence graham sammārṣṭi, it is the cleaning (sammārga) which is the new thing to be taught in regard to the vessels already taught elsewhere. In that other passage, the number of the vessels is also mentioned. That number is the one which is meant in the sentence in question. The number expressed by the suffix here is not to be taken seriously. The suffix only serves the purpose of lending correctness or completeness to the form (śabdasaṃskāra). The number expressed by it is set aside by the number openly mentioned by the stem in that other sentence. Before, the line of argu- ment was that the cleaning is for the sake of the vessels which are, therefore, more important in the sentence under consideration. Here, the line of argument is that what is mentioned in the injunctive sentence is more important than what is mentioned in a mere re-statement (anuvāda).]

The author now points out that the case is different in the sentence paśunā yajeta.