Arthavada in Manubhasya 2.6

[Full title: Mimamsa technical terms (7) Arthavada (7-9) References in Manubhasya verse 2.6]

REFERENCE Manu Smriti II. 6. Passage— kavacidarthavada iti | medhatithi on os II-6) And sometimes it lays out a mere Arthavada an eulogistic description. Explanation - 1 While discussing sources of 'Dharma' we have the discussion on Manu Smriti II. 6 which lays down that while Veda is first source of sacred law, the 'Smrti literature though opinion of those, who know both the 'Veda and Smrti', the conduct of good people and final the self satisfaction. Sometimes however we notice a contradiction in the act i.e. laid down in the Vedas and in the Smrti literature. Sometime it is noticed that the portion of the Veda becomes subsidiary and the matter from Smrti becomes principals. At times however the Vedic portion becomes principal and Smrti literature becomes subsidiary. Medhatithi also gives the alternative that sometimes some portion becomes a case of 'Utpatti vidhi' or it lays down the competency of a person for a particular act or at times it becomes 1. vedo' khilo dharmamu ‌lam smrtisile ca tadvidam | acarascaiva sadhunamatmanastustireva ca || 2-6 " Ms Vol I-P-162

67 463 a case of glorification. Medhatithi also invites our attention to the work 1 'Smrti viveka' and quotes stanzas from the same. This work however is not available to us. Here Medhatithi refers to 'Jaimini's Purva Mimamsa I. 32. Which decides the matter connected with a 'Smrti' passage laying down a particular act like performance of 'Astaka sraddha' for which there is no Vedic basic. Here the question arises whether such a Smrti passage is authoritative or not. The view point of the prima-facie is that such a 'Smrti' text is not authoritative. The 'Siddhanta' view however is that such a 'Smrti' is authoritative since it is bassed on Vedic literature. There is nothing new in the 'Smrti' and whatever is stated in the Vedic literature, finds a mention in the 'Smrti' literature. When however the 'Smrti' text is not contradicted by the 'Vedic text we have to infer the existance of a 'Vedic' text though it is not now available to us and the 'Smrti' text is based on that Vedic authority which is now lost to us. 1. smartavaidika yornityam vyatisangatparasparam | kartrtah karmalo va'pi viyujyete na jatu pratyaksasrutinirdistam ye'nutisthanti kecana | ta evam yadi kurvanti tatha syadvedamulata pramanya karanam mukhya vedaviddhih parigrahah| taduktam kartrsamanyadanumana srutih prati " 11 tau ||

REFERENCE Manu Smriti II. 6. Passage— atha vidhyuddeso vidheh pratiyadako narthavada iti kenaisa paribhasa krta | Translation Conedhatthi on ons II-6) Who has laid down the law that in the said passage the injunction is conveyed, not directly by the Arthavada itself but by the fact of its being connected with another injunctive passage? ExplanationWhile discussing the nature of 'Vidhi' and 'Arthavada' on the Manu Smriti II. 6 Medhatithi points out that, there is no such hard and fast rule that glorificatory passage should not give us any indication about the injunctive sentence. Medhatithi quotes the example 'Ete Patanti cat vardha' here in the form 'Patanti' there is no sign of the potential 'Vidyartha' sense but there is the 'Akhyata aravana' i.e. here the termination is added to the root. Medhatithi points out that, there are many sentences, which are devoid of potential sense and however they are regarded as 'Vidhi-vakyas'. Here he quotes the line 'Pratitistanti havai eta ratrirupayanti'. Here in this h h sentence the form 'Pratititis tanti' does not indicate potential sense, however, this is regarded as a case of injunction laying.down 'Batrisatra'. 1. vedo'khilo dharmamula smrtisile ca tadvidam | acarascaiva sadhunamatmanastustireva ca || 2 .60 M-5-vol I - P- 162

65465 Following the anology of the 'Ratrisatranyaya' to the present case of 'Ete Patanti catrarahh', there is nothing objectionable, if this is also regarded as a case of 'Arthavada' clarifying the nature of 'Vidhi-vakya'. In conclusion Medhatithi holds that the 'Arthavada vakya' has the merit of clarifying the nature of a 'Vidhi-vakya'.

REFERENCE Manu Smriti II-6. Passage— abhirvai sarva devata ' "agnireva devyo hota "- mantra api " na mrtyurasidamrtam tarhina| vidhyuddesadeva tatha namadhyeyam | vasantaya kapinjalanalabhata " dale tathapi na tesamanarthakyamatesu hi satsu na kevaladevagatih | (Medhatithi on Manu Smriti II-6). Translation - 'But in the Veda there are many such passages as (a) Agni is all the deities, Agni is the divine power of oblations, he invites the God and makes offerings to them and again (b) Prajapati cut out his own fat' and so forth, and certainly such passages do not lay down anything to be done; all that they do is either to relate some past even or to describe some entirely irrelagent thing. If his own fat was cut out by Prajapati, let him cut its what is that to us ? Similarly, the fact of Agni being all deities does not help in the offerings to Agni; that Agni is the deity to whom the offering should be made having been declared by the word 'Agni', itself, if Agni is some other deity, then the mere fact of his being another deity would rule him out as a recepient of that offering. As for inviting, that also is laid down by another passage- 'We invite Agni, O Agni and c.' And lastly, as far the mention of Agni inviting

61467 and making offerings to the Gods, this is absolutely meaningless. wailing "As regards mantras again, there are some f.g. (a) there was neither death nor immortality and c. (Rgveda, 10.129.2), (b) 'Sudeva might fall today never to return and c. (Rgveda 10.95.14) and so forth, which either describe source past event or contain a wing, and what Dharma could such mantras expound? At that time there was neither death, nor no living being having been born before creation, there was immortality nor life certainly no life or death of any one, during the universal dissolution also, there may come about the death of all things, or it may not come about, it does not deach us anything as to anything to be done. Simibrly, Sudeva, a certain highly meritorious god like man, might today fall i.e. might throw himself into a pit never to return i.e. after which fall he cannot come back to life, this is how Pururavas, separated from Urvasi be wailded. Similarly, as regards the names e.g. as one should sacrifice with the Udbhid, one should sacrifice with the Balabhid and c and c, they do not enjoin any act or substance; the enjoining of the action being done by the verb (should sacrifice), and the word 'Balabhid' and 'Udbhid' and c., not being expressive of any substances; specially as the substance for the sacrifice in question in the form of Soma, is got at from its arche type by virtue of the direct injunction (that the ectypal sacrifices are to be performed in the manner of their arche types and the archetype of the Udbhid sacrifice is the Jyotistoma at which some juice is the substance offered), and hence there is no necessity for twisting the words 'Udbhid' and c.; to yield the name of some sacrificial material (such as tree or spade which may be indicated by the etymology of the

468 word 'Udbhid' which means that which shoots out 'or' that with which digging is done). Thus it is clear that no dharma is indicated by the names. How then can it be said that 'the entire Veda is the root of dharma' ? by Our answer to the above is as follows: It is just in view of these doubts that the author has added the epithet 'entire', which it is meant that all these passages that have been cited by the objector help in providing knowledge of Dharma. (A) First as regards Arthavadas, these are not meant to be construed apart from the injunctive passages it is only if they were so construed that they would fail to help in the knowledge of Dharma. As a matter of fact, we find that if the Arthavada is taken apart by itself, it remains syntactically defective; and this leads us to conclude that they subserve the purposes of the corresponding injunctive passages; being so subservient to these latter, they come to be construed along with them; and hence they have got to be explained in such a manner as to make them fit in with the corresponding injunction. Thus the mention of Prajapati having cut his fat cannot be taken by itself; it has to be taken as supplementing an injunction; in view of the fact however that the Arthavadas do not denote a substance, a sacrificial accessory; or any suchnthing as generally forms the direct object of injunction, they are construed differently as eulogising what is directly enjoined, and thus came to be recognised as supplementing the injunction. This praise of the enjoined thing is also expressed by the Arthavada for instance, the sense of the passage in question is this it is o necessary to perform animal-sacrifices that, at a time when no animals were available, and there was me no other remedy, -

469 Prajapati constituted himself into the animal and cuts out his own fat.' That what such is the construction to be put upon the Arthavada is shown by the fact that whenever we have Arthavadas, they always accompany injuctive passages. Thus even though the sense of the injunction is comprehended even without the accompanying Arthavada e.g. in the case of the injunction 'one should offer the Kapinjala birds to Vasanta', we comprehend the injunctive from the sentence itself, yet the Arthavadas are not absolutely useless; for when the Arthavada is there, it is not right to deduce the injunction from the injunctive sentence only. Explanation - 1 While discussing the source of knowledge of Dharma we get Manu Smriti II, 6. The stanza means - "The entire Veda is the root source of Dharma; also the conscientious recollection of righteous persons versed in the Veda the practice of good (and learned men and their self-satisfaction). Here the question arises that as to whether entire Veda is the root source of knowledge of dharma or only part of it such as injuctive be n passages are to/regarded as the root of Dharma? Because if we regard entire Veda as a root cause of Dharma when there are some passages other than the injunctive passages and such passages also will have to be regarded as a root cause of dharma. The View of Objector :The objector holds the view that the only injuctive passages are to be regarded as a root cause of dharma and other passages which are of 1 vedo'khiko dharmamula smrtisileca tadvidam | acarascaiva sadhunamatmanastustireva ca | 2 .60 Ms Vol I P-162

0°470 no use such as Arthavada Vakyas are not to be regarded as a root cause of Dharma. For example there are some passages that describe Prajapati cuts his flesh and offers as an oblation into sacrifice. Thus, such passages are of a useless na-ture. Prajapati may cut his flesh or he may not cut. This will not serve the purpose of source of knowledge. Thus the injuctive passage of Veda only is to be regarded as a root of Dharma, The View point of Siddhantin T They The word 'entire' used by Manu is purposeful and also removes such doubts. The glorificatory passages which are mentioned by objector are also useful in providing knowledge of dharma. Because if we come across such passages, they are not be read in any isolated manner. are to be connected with some injunctive passages and such passages are always to be connected with some injunction. They are supplementary in nature. Thus Arthavada Vakyas are always read and comected with Vidhivakya, Thus, these Artha vada passages are also of help to us to procure the knowledge. The example, Prajapati cuts his flesh and offers into the sacrifice should not be taken as an independent passage. This should be connected with Vidhi-vakya, that animal is to be offered into the sacrifice. When no animal was available and there was no other remedy, then at that time Prajapati cut his fat and offered into the sacrifice. Thus the Arthavada-vakya is to be always to be connected with some Vidhivakya and then only such passages are to be understood and not in an isolated manner. Thus the Arthavada passages also provide us with the knowledge of Dharma.

471 • Thus Medhatithi in his bhasya on Manu Smriti II-6 clarifies the doubt regarding the Arthavada passages and establishes that they are also useful and they are also regarded as a root cause of dharma, if they are connected with the injunction in coherence sense and thus rejects the view point of the objector who is not prepared to treat vakya Arthavada bhasya as a source of law.