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

282 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. IX. 2-3
[ M p. 122 ll 22-33
also explains the paryudāsa (proviso) contained in the text of Yājñavalkya
(II. 175) 'a man may give anything that does not cause detriment to one's
family except¹ wife and son'. The absence* of ownership in son and wife has
been already propounded in the discussion on ownership (p. 83 above). In
making a gift of these (that are mentioned in Nārada) not only will the
gift be invalid in law but the man will be liable to undergo an expiatory
penance as Dakṣa says with reference to these
That foolish man who makes a gift of these incurs the penalty of
expiatory penance.
Manu says
He who receives what may not be given and he who gives what may
not be given both of them should be punished like a thief and should be
only repeat what is already well-known, that is, they are merely an anuvāda (which
is a variety of arthavāda). Nīlakaṇṭha cites a Vedic example of a negative clause being
only an anuvāda and not a niṣedha properly so called. In Tai. S. V. 2. 7 we have
a sentence "The brahmavādins say 'fire should not be kindled on the bare ground, nor
in the middle regions nor in the heavens'". The rule about agnicayana is that fire is
to be kindled on gold and not on bare ground. It is not possible to kindle fire in the
middle regions nor in the heavens; therefore this prohibitory passage (nāntarīkṣe na divi)
does not forbid what possibly might be done. These words contain only an arthavāda
(of the anuvāda variety) and serve to belaud the kindling of fire on gold and censure
kindling on bare ground. This text is dealt with in Jaimini I. 2. 5 and X. 8. 7. Vide notes
to V. M. pp. 367-368 for further explanation. An arthavāda has three varieties: virodhe
guṇavādaḥ syād-ānuvādovadhārite | bhūtārthavādas-tad-dhānād-arthavādas-tridhā
mataḥ || When it is said 'Ādityo yūpaḥ' (the sun is the sacrificial post) it is an example of
guṇavāda as this is opposed to our perception, but the sentence has only a secondary sense
(viz. that both Āditya and yūpa are brilliant). When it is said 'agnir himasya bheṣajam'
(fire is an antidote to cold) it expresses what is well-known from the experience of our
senses. So this is anuvāda. When it is said 'Indra killed Vṛtra' it is bhūtārthavāda
since it is not opposed to any pramāṇa, nor is it known from any pramāṇa; it only
narrates a story.
1 When the negative particle na is employed in a passage the question often
arises as to its exact import. In some cases it has the sense of pratiṣedha (prohibition)
as in 'he does not take the ṣoḍaśi cup in Atirātra sacrifice'. Sometimes na has the
sense of an arthavāda, as in 'neither in the middle regions nor in the sky' discussed above.
In some cases na has the sense of paryudāsa (an exception or proviso). A Vedic
example is 'the snātaka should not see the rising sun', which passage is preceded by the
words 'tasya vratam' (his observances). An observance is something positive, there-
fore 'he should not see' &c. does not prohibit the seeing of the rising sun but only enjoins
that he should make a resolve not to see the rising sun. Yājñavalkya's rule is 'what a
man owns may be given'. The words 'except son and wife' constitute an exception. Just
as in Nārada's verses 'anvāhitam' &c. several things are declared to be adeya though
over the first six of them there is no ownership (and so the negative particle is construed
as an anuvāda) so Yaj. excludes son and wife from deya things though they are not of
the same nature as other things (over which there is ownership). This is the idea
conveyed by the words 'this explanation also explains &c.)' Vide notes to V. M. pp. 369-
370 for detailed explanation. Dakṣa enumerates nine things as adeya.
P. 203 (text)