Sarkar, Kishori Lal: The Mimansa rules of interpretation as applied to Hindu law (Calcutta, 1909)

THE FIFTH LECTUkE.

289

(v) The Nishada-sthapati Nyaya oj' the low caste
priest maxim.1
‘When a compound word can be construed as a
compound of an adjective and a noun (Karmadharaya),
it should not be construed as a compound of two nouns
(Tatpurusha); because the former combination is sponta-
neous while the latter is far-fetched’.
(vi) The Vaishwanara Nyaya 2 or the maxim that
subordinates merge in the principal.
‘When a number of particular ‘clauses collectively
reproduce the purpose of a general clause, the particular
clauses can not be taken to create separate obligations
in addition to that of the general clause.’ ,
(vii) The Arthavada maxim.
There are clauses which are really parenthetical
clauses in a Vidhi text forming a gloss thereof.
There is the text: “Sacrifice a white animal to
Vayu, he is an angry god”3 Here the.clause' he is an
angry god * is a parenthetical clause descriptive of the
divinity.
Class II Group B.

(I) The Mantra-linga Nyaya4 or the maxim of
implied Vidhis.
Passages of the nature of Mantra (addresses and
hymns) by their suggestive power imply Vidhis and

1 fw^qfcT I Jaimini VI. i. 51.
2 i Jaimini I. iv. Adhi 11.
3 ^ i.qnpmiw 1
Adnikarana Kaumudi, para 28.
4 1 Jaimini I. ii. Adhi. 4.
37

Low-caste
priest
maxim.

Subordinates
merge in the
principal.

Arthavada
maxim.

M axim of >
implied
Vidhis.