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

42 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA
Avaṣṭambhaḥ means certainty. Therefore the koṣa ordeal can be employed
in a charge made with certainty about the wrong-doer and also in one where
there is a doubt. The Kālikāpurāṇa says:
In charges of adultery, of theft, of intercourse with women who are
forbidden, when one is accused of having committed a mortal sin, and in
cases of serious (or violent) offences against the king, ordeals may be
employed. In serious charges (of adultery etc.), in civil wrongs (such as
non-payment of debt) and in cases where there is reviling, the king should
prescribe ordeals with an undertaking (on the part of the complainant or
plaintiff) to pay a fine (in case of opponent's success in the ordeal). In
grave charges such as that of adultery, and in cases where there are many
accusers (or plaintiffs) an ordeal may be prescribed in order that (the
person accused) may clear himself (of the accusation), but without an
undertaking (by the accuser) to pay a fine (in case of opponent's success in
the ordeal).
Agamyāḥ (in the first verse from the Kālikā-purāṇa) means women
other than others' wives, such as prostitutes and the like that are common
(to all who visit them)¹, the word śaste means the same thing as abhi-
śaste (i.e. charged with the commission of a great sin), sāhasaṁ means a
wrong done with violence (or force), avarṣaḥ means abuse, śiraḥ means
fine. *The attribute (adultery with) another's wife (to the word abhiśāpa)
is not literally intended, since what is intended to be repeated (or mentioned)
as a topic (about which something is to be predicated) is abhiśāpa (grave
charge)²; similarly the words 'where there are many' etc. also (are not to be
literally understood). Therefore, even in the absence of individual com-
plainants, an ordeal may be resorted to in the case of all charges (of mortal
sins). The mention of the purpose in the words śuddhiskāraṇāt (for the
purpose of clearing one's character) can also be well construed on this inter-
pretation and also the following general proposition (can be well understood
or construed).

1. This is a somewhat unnatural sense of agamyāḥ. That word generally refers
   to such women as are forbidden for sexual intercourse (on the ground of its being incest).
2. Here Nīlakaṇṭha refers to a Pūrvamīmāṁsā principle (which follows from
   Jaimini III. 1. 13-15). Vide notes to V. M. pp. 80-81. The conclusion of Jaimini is
   that though the Vedic sentence 'he cleans the graha (cup)' uses only the singular graha,
   yet all cups are to be cleansed, i.e., the singular number is not strictly intended and
   stands for the plural also. In the same way the word paradārābhiyuktādiṣu already
   occurred in the first verse. It is again repeated in the third verse where the provi-
   sion to be laid down (the vidheya) is that an ordeal may be resorted to for clearing
   one's character. The subject of which this is predicated is really abhiśāpa (a grave
   charge) and not paradārābhiyukta, the word paradārā being only an attribute (viśe-
   ṣaṇa may be taken to include other abhiśāpas also, just as the singular number in-
   cludes the plural). So also even if there be not many accusers, or even when no accuser, an ordeal
   may be resorted to for clearing one's character.
   P. 40 (text)