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

119 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. IV s. 9-16 / M p. 58 ll 16-25 ]
śūdra even the whole (of his yearly) wealth if he be unable (to pay
so much) according to his ability
Chāyāvahaham (bearing the appearance or reflection) means
similar to Dauhitro bhāgineyas a (a daughter's son and a sister's
son) Just¹ as in the passage he (the sacrificer or the adhvaryu
1 This is among the most difficult passages of the Vyavahāramayūkha, containing as it
does a highly technical discussion of Pūrva Mīmāṁsā doctrines. For detailed explanation of
various terms, vide notes to V M. pp. 118–177 The Maitrāvaruṇa is an assistant of the hotṛ priest
in sacrifice, whose business it is to loudly repeat the praiṣas (directory formula) such as 'hotā
yakṣat &c. A staff is given to a sacrificer when he is initiated for a sacrifice. This effects a
saṁskāra (purification) of the sacrificer The staff is a thing that already exists (bhūta) but it
serves a future purpose also (i. e. it is a bhāvyupayogī) The staff is given to the Maitrā-
varuṇa by the adhvaryu (or the sacrificer according to some) for holding firmly as said
in the sentence he gives a staff to the maitrāvaruṇa What is of use in future or what
is to be accomplished is called bhāvya In the sentence one desirous of heaven should
offer a sacrifice the real meaning is 'by sacrifice heaven should be accomplished i e.
heaven is the object or goal (bhāvya) to be accomplished and is put in the accusative case
(yāgena svargaṁ bhāvayet) So it may plausibly be argued that, though the staff is
already existing (bhūta) it is of use to the Maitrāvaruṇa and is put in the accusative
case and so it is the bhāvya (the object to be accomplished, the principal thing) But
this is not correct. Vide Jaimini IV 2. 16–17 for a discussion. There is another sentence
the Maitrāvaruṇa holding the staff repeats the praiṣas i. e. the staff serves him as a
support when loudly repeating praiṣas. The dative case (in maitrāvaruṇāya daṇḍaṁ
&c.) shows that the intention is to regard the Maitrāvaruṇa as the principal (pradhāna)
factor in this sentence and not the staff The giving of the staff effects a saṁskāra in
Maitravāruṇa and therefore that is the vidheya (the matter enjoined) in this sentence.
This reasoning is extended to the words of Śaunaka that a daughter's son and a sister's
son are given to a śūdra. Here also there is giving (dāna) as in the sentence he gives
the staff &c and the word śūdra is put in the genitive case which has the sense of
dative. Therefore śūdra is like Maitrāvaruṇa the principal factor (pradhāna) in this
sentence and the bhāvya. The gift of the daughter's son and sister's son is the vidheya
(what is enjoined) with reference to a śūdra, the idea being dauhitrabhāgineyādinena
śūdraṁ bhāvayet The Vedas lay down for all (including śūdras) the duty of paying
off the debt due to the ancestors by means of sons. So it follows as a matter of course
that a sonless śūdra should adopt a son. Therefore the words a daughter's son &c
are not to be construed as prescribing adoption for śūdras (as that is already known)
but they lay down a restrictive injunction (a niyama vidhi) for a śūdra that he is
to adopt a daughter's or sister's son if available. Śūdra being the principal (śeṣin)
is the bhāvya and the dauhitra and bhāgineya are the śeṣa since they serve the purpose
of the śūdra by enabling him to pay off a debt. For śeṣa and śeṣin vide Jaimini
III 1. 2-6. The vidheya (thing enjoined) is the gift of the two. It is a restrictive rule
and its province is dauhitra and bhāgineya and not śūdra It is possible for a śūdra to
adopt any one whether dauhitra and bhāgineya or not. But if this sentence is
taken as a niyamavidhi he must first choose the dauhitra or bhāgineya, that is the text
means dauhitrabhāgineyau eva śūdrasya If this were not accepted then the text of
Śaunaka would have to be construed as dauhitra-bhāgineyau śūdrasya eva (daughter's
son and sister's son are to be adopted by the śūdra alone) This would make the
sentence a parisaṅkhyā (allowing the adoption of the two to śūdra so but forbidding
it in the case of members of the regenerate classes) which is to be resorted to only if
no other construction is possible as it is liable to three faults (explained above p 100 n 2)
It is always better to construe a passage as a niyama than as a parisaṅkhyā. Hence