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

being the vidheya (what is enjoined) in that passage cannot possibly be the
province of a niyama. If the text (of Śaunaka 'daughter's son &c.') were
explained as 'the two (may be adopted by s'ūdra only, the (undesirable)
consequence would be that there would be a parisaṁkhyā (implied exclu-
sion inferred from a permissive rule) in the case of brāhmaṇas and others
who also (like the s'ūdra) are seṣin (with reference to the act of
adoption that serves the purpose of all and is therefore śeṣa)

Therefore the daughter's son and the sister's son alone are the principal
(adoptees) for a s'ūdra. Failing them, any one else of the same caste
(may also be adopted) since the same author himself (Śaunaka) says
'among s'ūdras (one) from among the s'ūdra castes'. Nor (can it be
urged that)¹ this word jāti (caste) should be so narrowed down as to be
limited to only the daughter's son and sister's son (of a s'ūdra) since the
status of being a daughter's or a sister's son and that of belonging to the
same caste are not co-existent and since the (undesirable) conclusion would
follow that in the same smṛti (passage) a general rule will have to be
regarded as redundant.

And this matter has been expounded in the Dvaitanirṇaya² by my
revered father. To the same effect is the usage of the s'iṣṭas (cultured
or respectable people).

Thus the right of the s'ūdra (to adopt) being established like that

---

1. Nor can it be urged &c.—In this Nīl. anticipates an objection and meets it.
   Śaunaka gives a general rule (sāmānya rūpa) that among s'ūdras adoption should be
   from among s'ūdra castes; he also gives the particular rule that a dauhitra and bhāgineya
   are for a śūdra (which has been construed above as a restrictive rule). These two must
   be so construed as not to conflict. That can be done by saying that a s'ūdra can only
   adopt a dauhitra or bhāgineya who is of the same caste with him and that he cannot
   adopt anyone else even of his own caste. Nīl. does not accept this and gives two reasons.
   An upasaṁhāra (narrowing down of one sentence to another) is possible only when
   the two sentences stand in the relation of general proposition and particular proposition. Vide
   Jaimini III. 1. 26–27. But the above two sentences do not stand in that relation. When
   inter-marriages were allowed a s'ūdra's daughter or sister could have married a person of
   a higher caste and his dauhitra or bhāgineya would not have been a s'ūdra but of a
   mixed caste. Nīl. gives another reason also for rejecting the narrowing down. If a śūdra
   cannot adopt anyone of his own caste except dauhitra and bhāgineya the general rule
   of Śaunaka (viz. among a s'ūdras one from the s'ūdra castes) becomes useless. Therefore to
   give free scope to both rules one should construe that for a s'ūdra the principal adoptees
   are dauhitra and bhāgineya and failing them any s'ūdra. Vide notes to V. M. pp. 178–179.
   This passage has nothing to do with the fault called vākyabheda as Mr. Gharpure
   supposes (p. 74n. 1).
2. The Dvaitanirṇaya is a work of Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa, the father of Nīl. which contains
   discussions in accordance with Mīmāṁsā principles on various knotty points of dharma-
   śāstra. For a full account vide my paper on the work in the Annals of the Bhandarkar
   Institute, vol. III. part 2, pp. 67–72.
   P. 111 (text).