DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.39769#0352
326
I'HE SIXTH LECTURE.
the importance of the second and the third quarters
(Varuna Praghasfia and Shakamedha\ that the fire
kindling should take place ,in the two.
Jaimini construes the three texts as follows :
The first text is a general rule Samanya Vidhi. The
second is an exception to it. The third is an Arthavada
(reciting clause) which shows the reason why the
second and third are not subjected to any exception
in respect of fire kindling.
The above construction harmonizes the three text&
and does not introduce any conflict such as would
result in an option (Vikalpa).
But the opponents will not construe the texts in
that way. They argue as follows :
We concede that the first text is a general Vidhi,
and that the second is a special negative Vidhi by way
of sir ^exception. But the exception is as regards the
northern altar and not as to the kindling of the fire.
This being the case ‘we would’ they proceed to
say, ‘hold that the clause ‘Dvayo-pranayanti’ which
occurs in the third text is intended to apply to the
first and the last quarters (the Vaishwadeva and the
Sunashiri). For, these are in need of such a clause
to enable fire kindling, as the provision prohibiting the
northern altar in respect to them raises a difficulty in
1 the way of the fire kindling. * Whereas with regard to
the second and thb third, the clause would be a
superfluity, the fire kindling in these two being already
provided by the general rule (Upa atra vapanti/.
The opponents thus make out the kindling of fire
an the Vaishwadeva and the Sunashiri. But on what
is it to be kindled ? So they are yet in* need of the
I'HE SIXTH LECTURE.
the importance of the second and the third quarters
(Varuna Praghasfia and Shakamedha\ that the fire
kindling should take place ,in the two.
Jaimini construes the three texts as follows :
The first text is a general rule Samanya Vidhi. The
second is an exception to it. The third is an Arthavada
(reciting clause) which shows the reason why the
second and third are not subjected to any exception
in respect of fire kindling.
The above construction harmonizes the three text&
and does not introduce any conflict such as would
result in an option (Vikalpa).
But the opponents will not construe the texts in
that way. They argue as follows :
We concede that the first text is a general Vidhi,
and that the second is a special negative Vidhi by way
of sir ^exception. But the exception is as regards the
northern altar and not as to the kindling of the fire.
This being the case ‘we would’ they proceed to
say, ‘hold that the clause ‘Dvayo-pranayanti’ which
occurs in the third text is intended to apply to the
first and the last quarters (the Vaishwadeva and the
Sunashiri). For, these are in need of such a clause
to enable fire kindling, as the provision prohibiting the
northern altar in respect to them raises a difficulty in
1 the way of the fire kindling. * Whereas with regard to
the second and thb third, the clause would be a
superfluity, the fire kindling in these two being already
provided by the general rule (Upa atra vapanti/.
The opponents thus make out the kindling of fire
an the Vaishwadeva and the Sunashiri. But on what
is it to be kindled ? So they are yet in* need of the