Verse 1.3

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by J. R. Gharpure:

पुराणन्यायमीमांसाधर्मशास्त्राङ्गमिश्रिताः ।
वेदाः स्थानानि विद्यानां धर्मस्य च चतुर्दश ॥ ३ ॥

purāṇanyāyamīmāṃsādharmaśāstrāṅgamiśritāḥ |
vedāḥ sthānāni vidyānāṃ dharmasya ca caturdaśa || 3 ||

The Vedas, along with the Purāṇas, the Nyāya, the Mīmāṃsā,the Dharma-Śāstra, together with the Aṅgas, are the fourteen seats of the lores and also of Dharma.—(3)

The Mitākṣarā commentary of Vijñāneśvara Bhikṣu:

It may be said, in the text, “Let him be taught the rites of purification” is the injunctive rule for the Ācārya to teach the Dharma-Śāstra. Whence, it may be asked, is it deduced that the pupil should make a study thereof? So the Author proceeds

[Read verse 1.3 above]

The Purāṇas, such as the Brāhma and others. Nyāya, or the science of logic. The Mīmāṃsā the exegesis of the Vedic sentences. The Dharma-Śāstra, such as that of Manu and the like. The Aṅgas are six such as Grammar and the rest. Together with these are the four Vedas.

Vidyāḥ—the lores i.e., the lores which are the means for accomplishing the (four) objects, their seats (Sthānāni) are fourteen (Caturdaśa). The Seats of Dharma (Dharmasya ca), also are fourteen.

These moreover must be studied by the members of the first three^[1] classes. Being included among these the Dharma-Śāstra must also be studied.

There, these the Brāhmaṇa must secure for the acquisition^[2] of knowledge as also for performing the (duties prescribed by) Dharma. The Kṣatriyas and the Vaishyas for the performance of (duties under) Dharma. For it has been stated by Śaṅkha, after enumerating the seats of knowledge, that “these a Brāhmaṇa acquires and he directs the mode of^[3] life to others.”

Manu^[4] also points out that the twice-born have the right to study the Dharma-Śāstra, and that of a Brāhmaṇa alone (is the right) to teach, and of none else:

“He for whom the rites commencing with the sprinkling^[5] and ending with the cremation, with the recital of the Mantras, are prescribed, should be understood to have the right in this Śāstra, and of none else whatever.

“By a learned Brāhmaṇa must this be studied carefully and should be duly expounded to pupils, and not by any one else.”

The Vīramitrodaya commentary of Mitramiśra:

Now while pointing out the objective causes of Dharma by (predicating) the possession of the principal qualities, and casually pointing though only by implication the standard causes, by bringing out as the object of the present treatise, causing the observance of dharma, the Author elucidates the connection of the object, indicated before:

[Read verse 3 above]

Purāṇāni—i.e. The Puranas are defined^[6] thus: “Giving an account of the creation, destination, the Dynasties^[7] the manvantaras,^[8]  and a narration of the (two great) Dynasties—thus a Purāṇa has five characteristics.” They have been set out in the Viṣṇu-purāṇa^[9] thus: “The Brāḥma, the Pādma, the Śaiva, as also the Bhāgavata, similarly another is Nāradīya, Mārkaṇḍeya being the seventh. The Āgneya is the eighth and similarly the Bhaviṣya is the ninth. 5 The tenth is the Brahmavaivarta, the Laiṅga is remembered as the eleventh. And the Vārāha is the twelfth, and here the Skanda is the thirteenth. Fourteenth is the Vāmanaka, and the Kaurma is stated to be the fifteenth. Then the Mātsya, the Gāruḍa and thereafter is the Brahmāṇḍa.”

In the Kaurma, however, without including the Viṣṇu-purāṇa, but taking up the Vāyupurāṇa, the number eighteen has been stated. As to these two (versions) an option (exists). The Bhāgawata is indeed well-known, vide the text “Narrated to Ambariṣa and Śuka, always listen to the Bhāgavata, and also repeat by your own mouth, if you 15 desire an annihilation of births.”

“Where beginning with the Gāyatrī, the details of the Dharma, are given, which contains (an account of) the killing of the demon Vṛtra, that (Purāṇa) is known as the Bhāgavata” having been stated in the same work as the characteristic. In the well-known work, the commentators have pointed out the inauguration of the Gāyatri, while in the other Puranas there is an absence of even the least of it. It should therefore be very carefully noticed.

Here in the word Purāṇa are also included by implication the Upa-Purāṇas. In this connection, says the Kūrma Purāṇa^[10] :—“Other Puranas also have indeed been mentioned by the Munis. The first is that narrated by Sanatkumāra, next to it is the Narasiṃha. Third is intended as the Pādma, well stated by Kumāra. Fourth is known as Śiva-Dharma, inaugurated by Nandi himself. Narrated by Durvāsa is the wonderful Nāradīya (being) next to the last. The Kāpila, the Vāmana as also that narrated by the Auśanāh. And also the one known as the Braḥmāṇḍa, as also the one bearing the title of the Kālikā. The Māheśvara, and similarly the Śamba, the resort of the laws of the Gods.

The one narrated by Parāśara, another called Mārica, and that known as the Bhārgava, and this the fifteenth is called the Kaurma Purāṇa. In the Padma Purāṇa what has been narrated incidentally as an account of Narasiṃha, that containing 18,000 verses is here called the Nārasiṃha. Where the greatness of Nandā is described by Kārtikeya, that is the Nandā Purāṇa and is reputed in the world as having the name of Nandā. And O you who have taken the vow of the sages, that narrative, however, which having a reference to Śamba occurs in the Bhaviṣya, is called in the world as Śāmba also. Thus also is included by enumeration the (one having the name of) Aditya even there. Oh, best of sages, whatever Purāṇa is seen outside of these eighteen Purāṇas, know that as springing out of these.” Springing out, i.e., deduced.

As for their authority, the Bhaviṣyatpurāṇa (says thus): “The eighteen Purāṇa, as also the life-narrative of Rāma, the Śāstras such as the Viṣṇu-Dharma, Śiva-Dharma and others, O son of Bharata, the Kārṣṇa (regarded as) the filth veda as the Mahā Bhārata is known; the Saura Dharmas also, O best of kings, propounded by Manu on this earth, the wise call these by the name of Jaya.”

Nyāyaḥ—Logic—Commencing with “Pramāṇa, prameya &c.” and ending with “Hetvābhāsāḥ also as stated”, the Śāstra into five Adhyāyas and composed by Akṣapāda. By the word Nyāya are also included others such as the Vaiśeṣika, Sāṅkhya, Pātañjala and other Śāstras which do not directly address themselves to the consideration of the Śruti.

Mīmāṃsā—exegesis, i.e., the exegetial consideration of the Śruti, &c., relating to acts, as contained in the composition of Jaimini in Twelve Adhyāyas and commencing with^[11] “Now, therefore an inquiry into (the nature of) Duty &c.”, as also concerning Brahma Composed by Vyāsa consisting of four Adhyāyas and commencing with^[12] “Now therefore an inquiry into (the nature of) Brahma” &c., thus of two kinds.

Dharma śāstrāṇi the Smṛtis composed by Manu and others and regarded as (digests of) Dharma, and classified in the Bhaviṣyat-purāṇa thus: “Some Smṛti has a visible object, while another has an invisible one; yet another has both visible and invisible, and another is based on Logic, another is a Smṛti based on reason, the fifth as observed by the wise.” The Gṛhyās are also Smṛtis in form. By the word smṛti are also included the Pañcarātras, as these also are regarded as authoritative like the Smṛtis of Manu and others, Vide the words of Bhagavān in the Vārāha: viz. “In the absence of Vedic Mantras, men resort to the rules laid down in the Pañcarātra”; Vide also another rule in the same viz: “In the absence of the Veda Mantras, the procedure is as has been laid down in the Pañcarātra”; Vide also the passage in the Brahmapurāṇa “Raving properly offered worship to the destroyer of Madhu”; in the Mahābhārata also the Pañcarātras having been specially praised.

Thus the unauthoritativeness of the Pañcarātras mentioned in the Vedanta and also in the works by the Bhaṭṭas, has a reference to such Pañcarātras (only) as are opposed to the Vedas. For, in the Smṛtipāda in the (exposition of the) Sūtra^[13] : “If there is contradiction, it is to be disregarded; because, indeed it is only in the absence (of contradiction) that there can be a presumption.” it has been established that the authoritativeness of the Smṛti which is directly contradictory to the Śruti is to be disregarded. So also in the Sūtra^[14] : “Also because of a reason” that the revered Bhaṭṭa^[15] has observed “Such of these as have not been accepted by Vedic Savants, as having originated from the semblance of laws of a mixed character and which originated with the object of security, popularity, profit, respect, and notoriety, and which have been formed on the basis of visible objects such as splendour, directly known inference, resemblance and implication, is in contradiction with the three Velas, or are intertwined with dharma, and adharma as embraced in the tenets of Śāṅkhya, Yoga, Pāñcarātra, Pāśupata, Śākya, and Nirgrantha. or which on account of their strength of some success attained by the use of poisonous medication or incantations for causing allurement, eradication or madness, or such as are still of the exterior and advocating doctrines other than those based on non-violence, truth-speaking, self-restraint, donation, compassion and in tune with the (dictates of) Śruti and Smṛti, and which consists mostly of a (mode of) life tinctured by considerations of wealth, these alone are (intended) to be ignored, as being contraditary to the words of Śruti.”^[16]

Hence also, Bhojarāja in the Ratnamālā, after instancing the words of Bhagavān viz. “Have been stated,” has further quoted a passage from the Kūrma Purāṇa thus: “As for other Śāstras in this world which cause illusion, such as, the Vāma, Pāśupata, Soma, the very embodiment of the worst kind of hell, these are stated as false, and also outside the Vedas.”^[17]

Similarly: “Brāhmanas as as well Kṣatriyas will continue in that Kali (age) following the usage of the Vāma and Pāśupata as also following the Pañcarātra.” “Following the Pañcarātra” i.e. acting according to the Pañcarātra opposed to the Vedas. Therefore also in the Agni Purāṇa in the enumeration of Pañcarātras opposed to the Vedas have been mentioned the Pāśupata and other Pañcrātras. Thus said Hayagrīva: “I have, indeed, mentioned the Pañcarātras, as also the Saptarātras, which are twenty-five in number and have been exhibited by sages in this world. The first tantra is Hayaśīrṣa, a tantra which can stupify the three worlds.^[18] The Vaibhava, the Pauṣkara tantra, the Prāhlāda, the Gārgya, the Mālava, the Nāradīya, Māṇḍavya, the Śāṇḍilya and also the Vaiśvika, the tantra called Śaunaka spoken to by Satya, the Vāsiṣṭha the ocean of knowledge, the Svāyambhuva, the Kapila, the Tarkṣya, the Nārāyanīyaka, the Ātreya, the one called Nārasiṃha, that called Mānada as also the Āruṇa, the Baudhāyana as also the Avārṇa—thus has its extent been stated. Taking all this into consideration, the statement that the inclusion of the Pañcarātra in the daily routine is unwarranted, is without a basis is the emphatic protest^[19] of Śrī Dattopādhyāya. That even Śāstras such as the Pañcarātra, Pāśupata—and like others, in those places where they do not contradict the Vedas, are certainly authoritative as has been stated in the Pārijāta,^[20] has been demonstrated with great force as having been approved of all the learned men.^[21] Similarly others also such as “Smṛti, thus say the wise men” and the like clauses stated in the aforesaid compositions of established authority, are to be taken, as these have been accepted by great men.^[22] Also the Ṣaṭtriṃśanmata and like others also are of the same view, is the assertion of some. The Kalpataru says, no.

The Aṅgas as stated by Devala viz. “The Śikṣā, Vyākaraṇa, Nirukta, Chanda, Kalpa, and Jyotiṣa are the aṅgas of the Veda” Śikṣā the works of Yājñavalkya, Pāṇini, Parāśara and others demonstrating as a duty the study of the Vedas. Vyākaraṇam, the science consisting of eight Adhyāyas commencing with “ā, āi, and āu are called Vṛddhi” and ending with “a, a, the end.”^[23] and composed by Pāṇini, others not having made a Vaidic treatise.

Nirukta—the work composed by Yaska and elucidating the meaning of Vedic words.

Chandaḥ—The science composed by Piṅgala and treating^[24] of the Gāyatrī and other metres. Kalpaḥ—the procedure for the performance of the Jyotiṣṭowa and other sacrifices, composed by Kātyāyana, Baudhāyana and others.

Jyotiḥ—The well-known science indicative of the movements &c. of planets, and treating of the sign of the zodiac, composed by Garga and others.

With these i.e. the Purāṇa and the rest, mixed, (Vedāḥ) the Vedas, words well-known as Veda used for subjects treated by the Vaidikas and Yājñikas such as Manu and other renowned sages vide the disquisition^[25] in the Mīmāṃsā about the (authoritativeness of the) Mantras. Some maintain that passages which cannot be traced to human authorship are Vedic passages. The difficulty^[26] is removed by taking it as established by the Mīmāṃsā to be a composition of passages composed by others than human beings.

Some, however, by analogy with the rule in works on Nyāya, under which an elaborating exposition is observed in the case of compositions of “a narrative character” aver that such would be the passages having a Vedic character. And the irresponsible ones however, assert that an invariable accommpaniment with the special cause is the mark of the Veda.^[27]

These, moreover, have been demonstrated to be four by Devala and others deviding these as: “Ṛk, Yajuḥ, Sāma and Atharvaṇa are the Vedas.” There the portion of the Vedas which is profuse in Ṛks, is (called) the Ṛk. That which contains many Yajus is the Yajuṣ, and the one having an abundance of the Sāmas, the Sāma. The Atharvaṇa, moreover, which contains numerous passages demonstrating (the performance of) acts with a visible purpose, through the invisible. The two viz, the Khila and the Śukriya, are indeed included in these. Of these, the Khila is that portion of the Vedas, which presents acts to be performed and which has not been^[28] explained. The portion of the Veda mentioned in the Brāhmaṇa is called Śukriya by reason of its being set out by Śukra. While the Aṅgirasa, is only a portion of the Ātharvaṇa. Moreover these four Vedas are each divided into two parts, the Mantras and the Brāhmaṇa. By these, such sentences of the Vedas as are in the form of names to be used as instrumental at the performance of an act are designated by the word Mantra as has been demonstrated in the portion^[29] defining a Mantra in the Sūtra “The name Mantra is applied to those ( that serve the purpose of denoting things) connected with prescribed actions.” There also, the definition given by Manu and others, of a Mantra, as “that itself which is known as the Mantra,” survives in the end, by a discrimination of what is intended and what is not. And therefore it is that Pārthasarāthi Miśra has said that generally it is indicative of the sense in which it is understood by the experts, and therefore has stated that that is Mantra which is known as Mantra by the expert scholars.

Even the revered Jaimini with a view to obviate the inclusion of (passages of the nature of) modifications, invocation or names as Mantras states the definition of a Mantra as that which pre-eminently is known to possess the character of a Mantra in his Sutra viz.^[30] The character of a Mantra does not belong to what is not found in the text by the Veda because the (aforesaid) distinction applies only to such passages as are actually found in the Vedās.” So also Bhaṭṭapāda has observed “A mantra is defined as that which is so called by the Yājñikas.” Here, just as “mantra etc.” is an extended sense of the Brāhmaṇa, a similar definition of a Sūkta, Anuvāka and the like is indeed unobjectionable. On account, however, of a greater likelihood, that other definitions may be stated, so the portion of the Veda remaining after that covered by the Mantra is Brāhmaṇa, as has been said.^[31] “In regard to the rest, the name Brāhmaṇa (is used).” The meaning is that the Vedic portion remaining after the Mantras is Brāhmaṇa.

“Mantras also are declared to be Ṛk., Yajus and the Sāmans, and Nigada” thus have these been divided by Kātyāyana. Or where the adjustment of the (metrical) feet is by regard to the meaning, the Mantra is called Ṛk. as has been said.^[32] “Among these (i.e. the Mantras) those are called Ṛk. wherein the division into metrical feet is in accordance with the limitations of the meaning.” The meaning and the final conclusion is that a Mantra which is made up of well defined letters is a Ṛk. Here the special qualification is not being carried from the meaning, otherwise it would overlap in the Sāman.

A Mantra where the letters are not definitely fixed and which is preceded by singing is Yajuṣ. Regarding the definition of Yajus it has been stated^[33] thus: “In regard to the rest, the word Yajus (is applied).” What is pronounced with an accent different from that of a Ṛk. or the Sāma is Yajus. “A mantra when sung is called Sāma.” Although in the seventh Adhyāya the Samaṇ has been established to be that only which is sung, it is differently exhibited by regard to letters e.g. in (the passage) “Should sing in the Rathantaras”. Thus in the chapter on the distribution of the mantras, intending the word Sāmaṇ to apply to letters which are being sung, the Sūtra has been thus put “The name Sāma has been given to the musical (mantras)” i.e. the Sūtra has been arranged somehow by regard to the letters^[34].

The Nigadas, however, such as “He takes up the sprinkler,” and the like, are mantras in the form as addressed to another. In the Nigadādhikaraṇa, starting with the objector’s position as “The Nigadas should be regarded as the fourth kind (of Mantra), because of its peculiar character,” the Author has reached the established conclusion that they are a particular variety of the Yajuṣ. Hence also in the Śruti text—“aherbudhniyamantram me gopāya yamṛṣayastrayīvido viduḥ ṛcaḥ sāmāni yajuṃṣi” although a mantra has been mentioned only in three kinds, still in the texts such as “In a low tone by the Yajus, loudly by the Nigada” and the like others, a special designation having been stated, it should be understood that Nigadas have been separately stated by Kātyāyana with a view to bring them out particularly.

Brāhmaṇa, moreover, is twofold, as classified into Vidhi (or injunction) and Arthavāda (or explanatory passages). Parākṛti (other’s action) and Purākalpa (Past story) are only included in the Arthavāda.

There, Vidhi or injunction is fourfold by reason of the (following) varieties viz. Utpatti (or originative), Viniyoga (or applicatory), Prayoga (or of performance) and Adhikāra (of claim or qualification). The Utpatti-vidhi or originative injunction is that which demonstrates a thing or object which has not been the subject of any other vidhi, (and is) called the Utpatti because it was first reached. There moreover, it has six complements viz. “another word, repetition, quality, number, name or nomenclature and inter-dependence.”

Now, as in the text “one should perform the Agniṣṭoma sacrifice”^[35] and the like passages, where an injunction is expressed by the word Pārārthya—i.e. existing for the purpose of something else, such an injunction which intimates the connection of some subsidiary matter, it is called the Viniyoga-vidhi^[36] or the injunction by application. In the application of this Vidhi—“Śruti, a direct statement, Liṅga, or power, Vākya, sentence or syntactical connection, Prakaraṇa, interdependence, Sthāna, place, and Samākkyā, name”—are regarded as auxiliaries.

The Adhikāra-vidhi is the injunction which intimates the capacity in regard to results e.g.—“Oue desirous of Heaven, should offer the Jyotiṣṭoma sacrifice” and the like.

The Prayoga-vidhi is the injunction which intimates the simultaneous performance in entirety together with the aṅgas. By way of Comprehending the option in regard to the eight faults accompanying a sacrifice enjoined under each of the Vidhis with their injunctions, the Prayoga-vidhi itself has been mentioned as the principal Vidhi as intimating the periormance of the principal act together with all the aṅgas. As in “one should offer the Jyotiṣṭoma sacrifice” and the like, as one should discriminate from the form.

The Utpatti-vidhi is of three kinds viz. (1) As originative of an act only as in “one performs a sacrifice to the fire” and the like. (2) As originating an act as having a special quality as in “one should offer the Soma sacrifice” and the like and (3) As originating the quality only as in “one offers a sacrifice with curds” and the like.

Viniyoga-vidhi or the injunction of application is also three-fold viz., Apūrva-vidhi, Niyama-vidhi and Parisaṅkhyā-vidhi, as has been said: “An injuction (Vidhi) takes place when something is absolutely non-established; an injunction of necessary arrangement (Niyama), when one alternative is already established; when both alternatives are already established, the injunction required is called limitation (Parisaṅkhyā).” There, the first (is instanced) as in “One desirous of heaven Should offer the Jyotiṣṭoma sacrifice and the like.” The second as in “they pound the paddy” and the like. The third as in “He takes up the one bearing the name of the horse” and the like. In the Bhāṣya, however, “Five only of the five-nailed animals must be eaten” has been given as an illustration of the third; but this topic is not being elaborated here for fear of enlarging the present discussion.

Arthavādas, however, are in the form of praise or censure. Of these, the first (is illustrated) as in “Vāyu indeed is the swiftest deity” and the like, and the second as in “His oblations (the gods) do not eat, who offers the sacrifice after sunrise” and the like, may be taken as understood elsewhere. Thus enough of an elaboration again of things which are inter-connected.

The putting of the Purāṇas as accessory is with the object indicating the Vedas as the Principal.

Vidyānām,—of the lores i.e., of the knowledge which is the means of accomplishing the (four) objects. Therefore even of Dharma also are these the seats (Sthānāni), i.e., means, as dharma is caused by the introduction of knowledge.

Although, elsewhere, eighteen seats of lores have been mentioned, as in the Viṣṇu Purina. “The Aṅgas, the four Vedas, the Mīmāṃsā, the extensive Nyāya, the Dharma-Śāstrā, and the Purāṇa, these are the fourteen (seats of) knowledge. The Ayurveda, the Dhanurveda, the Gāndharva-veda also these three, and the fourth the Artha-Śāstra, thus these eighteen are known as (the seats of) knowledge,” still, here, by the word Veda, are included the Āyurveda and others in the form of subordinate Vedas, and thus it should be understood that there is no shortness (of statement). These, although seats of knowledge cannot be the seats of Dharma because their objective is not Dharma, so they say.

As to what the Brahma-Purāṇa. says viz, that “the Vedānta is the fifteenth, and Vidyā shall be the sixteenth”, there Vedānta means the Śārīraka. The Vidyās i.e.,the esoteric teaching of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and the like. These two moreover have been included by the word Mīmāṃsā and Veda, Thus everything is well arranged.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

traivarṇikāḥ—[traivarṇika] i.e. the first three classes excluding the fourth.

[2]:

vijñāprāptaye—[vijñāprāpti] It would seem that here the causal also is intended i.e. prāpaṇāya [prāpaṇa].

[3]:

vṛttiṃ—[vṛtti] Rules of conduct and performance of duties prescribed.

[4]:

II.16.1.103.

[5]:

niṣekādiḥ—[niṣeka-ādi] The sprinkling of the seminal fluid, i. e. irwni. See Gautama. Chapter VIII. 14-25.

[6]:

Matsya Purāṇa chapter 53. 64.

[7]:

i.e., the two great dynasties, the Solar and the Lunar.

[8]:

The interval between two Manus. By reason of their constant recurrence they are innumerable. Each Manvantara contains 4,320,000 days. Fourteen of these make up a day of Brahmā, Each of these fourteen is presided over by a Manu having a distinct name. These are (1) svāyaṃbhuva, (2) svārociṣa, (3) auttami, (4) tāmasa, (5) raivata, (6) cākṣuṣa, (7) vaivasvata, (8) sāvarṇi, (9) dakṣasāvarṇi, (10) brahmasāvarṇi, (11) dharmasāvarṇi, (12) rudrasāvarṇi, (13) raucyadevasāvarṇi and (14) indrasāvarṇi. We are at present in the seventh of these, presided over by the vaivasvatamanu.

[9]:

They have been described with a variation in other Purāṇas. See Matsyapurāṇa chapter VIII. 59-64 quoted in Bālambhaṭṭi (Gharpure) pp. 5-7.

[10]:

Chapter I.15 and the following.

[11]:

Jaimini I.1.1.

[12]:

Vedānta Sūtra I,1.1,

[13]:

smṛtipāda—The third Pāda of the first Adhyāya is so called. Jaimini I,3.3. This is the third Sūtra, in the third Pāda of the first Adhyāya. Known as the “smṛtiprāmāṇya-adhikaraṇa”. The first two Sūtras making up the “śrutiprāmāṇya-adhikaraṇa”. It means that whenever there is contradiction “virodhe tu” (between the Smṛti and the Veda) the Smṛti “anapekṣaṃ syāt” should de disregarted. “asati hi”—Because it is only when there is no (contradiction) that there is “anumānam” a presumption, vide the last Sūtra—(in regard to the Veda being in support of the Smṛti).

[14]:

Jaimini I.3.4. called the “dṛṣṭamūla-smṛtiprāmāṇya-adhikaraṇa”.

[15]:

i.e. Kumārila Bhaṭṭa.—One of the two chief exponents of the Mīmāṃsā the other being Prabhākara. The opinions of one are known as bhāṭṭamata and of the other as gurumata. After Śabara Svamin, these two have been occupying a prominent place among the exponents of this school.

[16]:

The position is this: Under I.1.3. as the Vedas are the basis of Dharma that which is not in the Veda is to be disregarded. It may, however, happen, that certain passages in the Smṛti have not the support of the Vedas in that a passage directly supporting it is not found in it. Then under the 3rd and 4th Sutras, if the two are contradictory, the Smṛti is discarded. Where, however, there is no contradiction, the mere fact that a corresponding passage is not found in the Vedas is no evidence of its absolute non-existance at any time. The Schoolmen argue thus: Smṛtikars like Manu and Yājñavalkya admittedly follow the Vedas. Not only do they regard Vedas as the basis of all laws, but they practice, teach, and expound the letter and the spirit thereof. It is therefore not proper that what they say or lay down must not have a Vedic backing. Ages of long continued tradition handing down to numberless generations rules and their observances must be taken as clear oridence [evidence?] of the existence of these rules in the Vedas. In such a case, the only qualification to be borne in mind is, that where a Smṛti is in contradiction or is incongruous with the Śruti, it is to be discarded. As also must those provisions be discarded which are based on facts or considerations adverted to above.

Note also the following:

aṣṭakādismṛterdharme na mātvaṃ mānatāthavā /
nirmūlatvānna mānaṃ sā vedārthoktau nirarthatā // 1,3.1 //
vaidikaiḥ smaryamāṇatvātsaṃbhāvyā vedamūlatā /
viprakīrṇārthasekṣepātsārthatvādasti mānatā // 1,3.2 //
na mā smārtāṣṭaṅkāṅgatvādyāṃ janā iti mantragīḥ /
tanna smṛtermūlavede'numite mātvasaṃbhavāt // 1,3.3 //

[17]:

For a detailed and exhaustive treatment of the Tantra literature, the reader is referred to the Volumes on that subject published by Arthur Avalon in 1914.

[18]:

i.e. svarga, mṛtyu and pātāla.—The Heaven, the Earth and the Nether regions.

[19]:

siṃhanādaḥ—[siṃhanāda] the war cry.

[20]:

e. g. in Madanapārijāta p. 80 11 12. 18.

[21]:

śiṣṭāḥ—[śiṣṭa] men of learning and of position estableshed by their repute.

[22]:

mahājana—It may also he rendered as the great populace; cf. mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ.

[23]:

The Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini opens with the Sūtra indicating the signs of vṛddhi and ends with the Sūtra “a a iti” which the Vṛttikāra explains thus:

ekotra vivṛto'paraḥ saṃvṛtastatra vivṛtasya saṃvṛtaḥ kriyate | akāro vivṛtaḥ saṃvṛto bhavati ||

The “a” which was considered to be open (vivṛta) in all the preceding operations of this Grammar, is now made contracted (saṃvṛta). Under 1.1.9. (tulyāsyaprayatnaṃ savarṇam)—those whose place of utterance and effort are equal are called Savarṇa or homogeneous letters. Now this effort or prayatna may be ābhyantara (internal) or bāhya (external). The ābhyantaraprayatna may be (1) spṛṣṭa: having a complete contact, or (2) īṣatspṛṣṭa or (3) vivṛta: complete opening e.g. “a, ā i u &c”, (4) īṣatvivṛta or (5) saṃvṛta: contracted.

[24]:

pratipādaka—originating and treating.

[25]:

mantrādhikaraṇa-nyāya—Jaimind II.1.32. See also Jaimind I, 2. 31-53. where after stating the several positions of the pūrvapakṣa in. 31-39 Sūtras, their refutation is given in Sūtras 40-50, and the Siddhānta is stated in Sūtras 51-53 thus:

liṅgoṃpadeśaśca tadarthatvāt | ūhaḥ | vidhiśabdāśca |

The following kārikā may conveniently be borne in mind for determining the existence of the mantra character of Vedic passages and its absence.

uttamāmantraṇāsyantatvāntarūpādyabhāvataḥ |

i.e., “where the marks enumerated above are not found, it is not a mantra.”

Thus (1) uttama—The use of the first person e.g. “agnaye juṣṭaṃ nirvapāmi” (2) āmantraṇa—e.g. “agne yaśasvinyaśase” (3) asyānta—the asa ending e.g. “urvī cāsi, vasvī cāsi” (4) tvānta—e.g. “[?]ṣai tvā, urje tvā” and also (5) mantraprasiddhi—i.e. passages well known as mantras e.g.,—“adha svidāsīdupari svidāsīt”.

[26]:

kaṇṭakoddhāraḥ [kaṇṭakoddhāra]

[27]:

upādhi has been defined as “sādhyadhyāpakatve sati sādhanavyāpaka upādhi”: special cause for a general effect e.g, the ārdrendhana is the upādhi of vanhi.

[28]:

i.e., in regard to which no nirukta has been offered.

[29]:

See note (68) above p. II. 32.

[30]:

Jaimini II I.34—ūhādyamantra-adhikaraṇa.

[31]:

Jaimini II. 1. 33.

[32]:

Jaimini II. 1. 35.

[33]:

Jaimini II. 1. 37.

[34]:

The word “Sāman” does not strictly apply to the mantras them, selves, as it is owing to the word or letters set to different ways and tunes in music e.g. Rathantaras, Bṛhat etc. that the mantra is called Sāman. This setting to music is regarded as a Saṃskāra a purification of the mantras, and as such, owes its origin to the singer and as such cannot ba called Veda proper—which is without a source—human or otherwise.

[35]:

[?] This is the XIII. in 2nd Adhyāya 1st Pāda covering Sutras 38-45.

[36]:

It is otherwise described as “aṅgapradhānasaṃbandhabodhako vidhiḥ”.