व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

S. IV. 6. 2 ] ADOPTION 105
M. p 50 ll. 23 30 ]
given away (in adoption) when there is no distress¹. Vijñāneśvara holds that
this prohibition (viz. a son should not be given when there is no distress)
affects only the giver² (and not the receiver or the act of adoption) and
is puruṣārtha (i.e. concerned only with the agent or his motives) and
not kratvartha (i.e. not concerned with the religious act which has an
unseen result). But this is not proper, since this prohibition (that a son
should not be given in adoption when there is no distress) is understood
to be _kratvartha_³, as it has an unseen result if we consider the syntactical
connection (of it with the whole⁴ act). Even if it be conceded that a seen
result somehow follows (from this prohibition), it is necessary to postulate
some unseen result for the positive restrictive injunction⁵ (niyama viz. a

1. Some writers like Bālambhaṭṭa and Kātyāyana quoted in D. M. take the word
   āpad to mean 'distress of the natural father such as famine', while others like Kullūka-
   bhaṭṭa take āpad to mean simply 'distress due to the absence of a son on the part of
   a sonless man'. Vide notes to V. M. p. 161.
2. 'Affects only the giver'—Vide 21 Bom. 867 (F. B.) at p. 374 where this
   passage is quoted and explained.
3. The text of the Mayūkha here is extremely abstruse and it would add to
   the bulk of the notes to point out that Mandlik and other translators and expositors are
   wrong. Therefore that task has not been attempted. Only those who have made a deep
   study of the Mīmāṁsā can follow the discussion here. Puruṣārtha and Kratvartha
   are technical Mīmāṁsā terms and are dealt with in the 4th chapter of Jaimini's sūtras.
   Some things are prescribed in the Vedic and other texts for doing which the sole motive
   is the desirable result, while there are other actions which do not directly bring about what
   is desired by the agent but are performed for helping forward some other action or thing
   which brings about something desired by the agent. The former are puruṣārtha, the latter
   kratvartha. For example, jyotiṣṭoma, which is prescribed as bringing about heaven, and heaven
   itself are puruṣārtha, while the prayājas which form part of the procedure of the
   darśapūrṇamāsa sacrifice are kratvartha. All substances useful in sacrifices and their
   purifications are kratvartha. If a thing that is kratvartha is not done or badly done,
   there is a defect in the kratu itself (the religious rite), but if a thing is simply puruṣār-
   tha and it is not done or badly done there is no defect in the religious act itself, but the
   blame attaches to the agent alone. This reasoning was applied by the Mit. to the
   (implied) prohibition of not giving a son in the absence of distress, the result being that
   the act of adoption itself was valid, only the giver incurred blame. Vide notes to V. M.
   pp. 161--162.
4. The adoption of a son is made for spiritual purposes (i.e. it has an unseen result
   just as heaven, the reward of performing jyotiṣṭoma, is an unseen result). Whatever
   is enjoined or prohibited in connection with this object is subsidiary (aṅga) to it and forms
   one connected whole with it. What is an aṅga to a religious act (kratu) is kratvartha
   (according to the Mīmāṁsā) and hence the prohibition is really kratvartha. Vākya is one
   of the six means of correctly interpreting Vedic texts.
5. A son could be given in adoption in distress as well as when there is no distress.
   Manu (9. 168) restricts the giving to a time of distress. This must have some spiritual
   or unseen result, as in the Vedic restriction of unhusking the grains of rice by mortar and
   pestle. Niyama is a technical Mīmāṁsā term. Vide notes to V. M. p. 168.
   V. M. 14