DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.39769#0064
$Famadheya.
Difference
fetetween
Arthavada
afrid Nama-
dbeya.
3-8 THE INTRODUCTORY LECTURE
neutralising the other. <Ne would not allow this- so long
as the text was capable of being construed as an Artha-
vada. But an Arthavada, though it cannot be allowed to-
interfere with the force of a-Vidhi, is yet useful, as Jai-
mini explains,. to facilita-te the ''understanding of a Vidhi?
and its application and is thus its concomitant"1
As regards the class of texts called Namadkeyas.
Literally, they are descriptions of nakriesf practically they'
correspond to- what in our modern legislation form defi-
nitions and general clauses originating in the A-purva
sanction but'net containing a command in itself.2 3 4
< Alamadheya texts are really distinguishable from
Arthavada texts in not having reference to a particular
Vidhi; but having, as a-definition, a bearing upon the
general scope of tfie subject.8 If tfiis is the distinction
between Namadheya and Arthavada, it is not foreign1 to
our mcdern idea's of law. Medhatithi, would somewhat
*• ( >■
extend the force of the word Namadheya.* A text may-
bo in the'form of’a Vidhi,. but In substance it may be
a- NamadheyaA
Some writers would limit the- term1 Namadheyas to5
the proper names of some ceremonial acts.- The language
of Sutras, however, is comprehensive and general enough-
to include a-L1 cases of nomenclature and definition.-
Sometimes the ordinary meaning of a word or' a’ set of
1 gitsfg I Jaimini I. ii.- 8,
2 ^fq | Jaim'ini I. iv. 2,-
3 wpjft-qfai: | Jaimini I.-iv^.-
4 g ^ gfqig ifa | Medha-
i
tithi’s commentary on sloka, 103. ch. 1.
5 | Jaim-ini I. iv. Adhi 4,
Difference
fetetween
Arthavada
afrid Nama-
dbeya.
3-8 THE INTRODUCTORY LECTURE
neutralising the other. <Ne would not allow this- so long
as the text was capable of being construed as an Artha-
vada. But an Arthavada, though it cannot be allowed to-
interfere with the force of a-Vidhi, is yet useful, as Jai-
mini explains,. to facilita-te the ''understanding of a Vidhi?
and its application and is thus its concomitant"1
As regards the class of texts called Namadkeyas.
Literally, they are descriptions of nakriesf practically they'
correspond to- what in our modern legislation form defi-
nitions and general clauses originating in the A-purva
sanction but'net containing a command in itself.2 3 4
< Alamadheya texts are really distinguishable from
Arthavada texts in not having reference to a particular
Vidhi; but having, as a-definition, a bearing upon the
general scope of tfie subject.8 If tfiis is the distinction
between Namadheya and Arthavada, it is not foreign1 to
our mcdern idea's of law. Medhatithi, would somewhat
*• ( >■
extend the force of the word Namadheya.* A text may-
bo in the'form of’a Vidhi,. but In substance it may be
a- NamadheyaA
Some writers would limit the- term1 Namadheyas to5
the proper names of some ceremonial acts.- The language
of Sutras, however, is comprehensive and general enough-
to include a-L1 cases of nomenclature and definition.-
Sometimes the ordinary meaning of a word or' a’ set of
1 gitsfg I Jaimini I. ii.- 8,
2 ^fq | Jaim'ini I. iv. 2,-
3 wpjft-qfai: | Jaimini I.-iv^.-
4 g ^ gfqig ifa | Medha-
i
tithi’s commentary on sloka, 103. ch. 1.
5 | Jaim-ini I. iv. Adhi 4,