Chapter 9.1 - Classification of Parisaṃkhyāvidhi

This injunction of exclusion (parisaṃkhyāvidhi) is of two kinds viz. direct or directly stated or expressed (śrautī) and indirect or metaphorical or implied (lākṣaṇikī).

When a sentence contains the particle ‘eva’ which means the idea of the exclusion of things other than the mentioned things, it is said to contain the direct exclusion.

For example,

“atra hi eva āvapanti”

(Indeed, here only [they] insert [new words]).

Āvāpa means addition or insertion (prakṣepa, samuccaya) of some new words and udvāpa means omission or deletion (uddhāra, nivṛtti) of some existing words. Now, the question is where these āvāpa and udvāpa are to be followed? Is there any rule that these two techniques should be practised in the case of stanzas occuring in all rites or these are to be followed in the case of only a few?

There is a sentence occuring in connection with the pavamāna rite—

“trīṇi ha vai yajñasya udarāṇi yad gāyatrī bṛhatī anuṣṭubh. atra hi eva āvapanti, ata eva udvapanti ”

(There are three bellies of a sacrifice. These are gāyatrī, bṛhatī and anuṣṭubh. Indeed, here only they insert new words, so they delete the existing words).

This sentence tells us that āvāpa and udvāpa are to be performed in the pavamāna rite in which hymns composed in the gāyatrī, bṛhatī and anuṣṭubh metres are to be recited. The word eva in the sentence expresses the exclusion of rites other than pavamāna rite in which hymns composed in the gāyatrī, bṛhatī and anuṣṭubh metres are to be recited. The word eva in the vedic sentence expresses the exclusion of rites other than pavamāna and of stanzas in metres other than the specified ones from the sphere of āvāpodvāpa. Therefore, the above injunction is an example of śrautī parisaṃkhyā.

But the injunction ‘pañca pañcanakhā bhakṣyāḥ’ does not contain the particle ‘eva’. Here, the exclusion of ‘pañcapañcanakhabhakṣaṇa’ is not directly expressed by ‘eva’. It is merely implied. So, this sentence becomes an example of indirect exclusion (lākṣaṇikī parisaṃkhyā).

Because of the absence of a word which expresses the idea of exclusion, the indirect injunction of exclusion is vitiated by three defects. These defects are:

1. śrutahāni or the abandonment of what is directly stated or the expressed sense,
2. aśrutakalpanā or the assumption of what has not been directly stated and
3. prāptabādha or the contradiction or rejection of what has acrued [accrued?].

As the injunction ‘pañca pañcanakā bhakṣyāḥ’ discards its appararent meaning i.e. eating of the flesh of five five-nailed animals and it dissuades us from eating of the flesh of animals other than the specified five-nailed animals, it is vitiated by śrutahāni or svārthatyāga.

Secondly, the injunction gives the meaning of ‘apañcapañcanakhabhakṣaṇanivṛtiti, but this sense is not expressed by any word in the above injunction, but it is to be assumed or presumed. Thus, the defect aśrutakalpanā or parārthasvīkāra arises.

Thirdly, this injunction prevents us from eating of the flesh of animals other than the specified five five-nailed animals. A man eats that flesh from his natural addiction. This eating is an obtained matter. But this injunction forbids this ‘apañcapañcanakhabhakṣaṇa’ also.

It should be noticed that the defects śrutahāni and aśrutakalpanā belong to word, because they consist in abandoning the direct meaning of words and assuming some other instead of it.

But the defect prāptabādha has nothing to do with words and their meanings, but it consists in the rejection of a matter which is established by other causes i.e. appetite, natural addiction etc. So this defect is related to meaning.