Purva Mimamsa Sutras

अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा

athāto dharmajijñāsā

Now, therefore [after Vedic study], [begins] the inquiry into dharma (jijñāsā).

Note: The opening sutra of the entire Mimamsa Sutra corpus; its phrasing (athāto...jijñāsā) is deliberately echoed by the Brahma Sutra's own opening, athāto brahmajijñāsā, since the Vedanta tradition reads Uttara (Brahma-)Mimamsa as continuing where Purva Mimamsa (this text) begins.

चोदनालक्षणोऽर्थो धर्मः

codanālakṣaṇo'rtho dharmaḥ

Dharma is that object/entity (artha) whose defining mark (lakṣaṇa) is codanā — the injunctive command of the Veda.

Note: The foundational Mimamsa definition of dharma: it is known solely through Vedic injunction (codanā), not through perception or independent reasoning — the thesis the rest of the text defends.

तस्य निमित्तपरीष्टिः

tasya nimittaparīṣṭiḥ

[Next follows] the investigation (parīṣṭi) of dharma's cause — i.e., its means of valid knowledge.

सत्संप्रयोगे पुरुषस्येन्द्रियाणां बुद्धिजन्म तत्प्रत्यक्षम् अनिमित्तं विद्यमानोपलम्भनत्वात्

satsaṁprayoge puruṣasyendriyāṇāṁ buddhijanma tatpratyakṣam animittaṁ vidyamānopalambhanatvāt

Perception (pratyakṣa) is the arising of cognition (buddhi) in a person through the contact (saṁprayoga) of the senses (indriya) with an [already] existing object (sat). It is not the means [for knowing dharma], because it apprehends only what presently exists.

औत्पत्तिकस् तु शब्दस्यार्थेन संबन्धस् तस्य ज्ञानम् उपदेशोऽव्यतिरेकश् चार्थेऽनुपलब्धे तत्प्रमाणं बादरायणस्यानपेक्षत्वात्

autpattikas tu śabdasyārthena sambandhas tasya jñānam upadeśo'vyatirekaś cārthe'nupalabdhe tat pramāṇaṁ bādarāyaṇasyānapekṣatvāt

But the relation (sambandha) between word (śabda) and its meaning (artha) is autpattika — natural and inherent [not created by convention]. Cognition of it is upadeśa (Vedic teaching), and this is unfailing (avyatireka) even when the object is not [otherwise] perceptible. Therefore word/testimony is a pramāṇa — according to Bādarāyaṇa — because it is independent [of any other means of knowledge].

Note: The foundational sutra establishing śabda-pramāṇa (verbal testimony, i.e. the Veda) as an autonomous, self-sufficient means of knowledge for dharma. 'Bādarāyaṇa' is cited here as the authority for this view; the name is traditionally identified with the author of the Brahma Sutras, underscoring the doctrinal continuity between Purva and Uttara Mimamsa that sutra 1.1.1 already signals.

कर्मैके तत्र दर्शनात्

karmaike tatra darśanāt

[Objection:] Some [teachers] hold that word/sound is karma — an action, i.e. something produced — because that is what is observed [in its utterance].

Note: Opens the purvapaksha (opponent's position) of adhyaya 1's famous shabda-nityatva (eternality of sound) debate, running through roughly 1.1.17.

अस्थानात्

asthānāt

[And] because it has no fixed location.

करोति शब्दात्

karoti śabdāt

From the use of the verb 'karoti' ("[he] makes/produces") [with reference to uttering sound].

सत्त्वान्तरे च यौगपद्यात्

sattvāntare ca yaugapadyāt

And because [the same word] is found occurring simultaneously (yaugapadya) in a different individual/substrate [i.e. many speakers uttering it at once].

प्रकृति विकृत्योश् च

prakṛti vikṛtyoś ca

And [the same reasoning applies] to both the original (prakṛti) and the modified (vikṛti) [forms of a sound].

वृद्धिश् च कर्तृभूम्नास्य

vṛddhiś ca kartṛbhūmnāsya

And its (sound's) increase [in loudness] comes from the multiplicity of agents [speaking it at once] — [showing it to be a quantifiable product].

समं तु तत्र दर्शनम्

samaṁ tu tatra darśanam

But the observation [invoked] there applies equally [on both sides of the debate].

सतः परमदर्शनं विषयानागमात्

sataḥ paramadarśanaṁ viṣayānāgamāt

Of an existing [sound], there is non-perception beyond a certain point, because it does not reach [further into] the range [of the ear].

प्रयोगस्य परम्

prayogasya param

[That non-perception comes] after the utterance (prayoga).

आदित्यवद्यौगपद्यम्

ādityavad yaugapadyam

[Its] simultaneity [being perceived in many places at once] is like that of the sun — [seen simultaneously in many places without thereby becoming many].

Note: Source reads आदित्त्यवद्यौगपद्यम् with a doubled त् (आदित्त्य); corrected to the standard आदित्यवत् (ādityavat, 'like the sun'), a transcription artifact.

वर्णान्तरम् अविकारः

varṇāntaram avikāraḥ

A difference in the phoneme (varṇa) [e.g. in pitch] is not [itself] a modification [of the sound's own nature].

नादवृद्धिपरा

nādavṛddhiparā

[That apparent difference] pertains merely to an increase in the volume/intensity of sound (nāda).

नित्यस् तु स्याद् दर्शनस्य परार्थत्वात्

nityas tu syād darśanasya parārthatvāt

But [sound] must indeed be eternal (nitya), because its perception (darśana) serves another's purpose (parārtha) — i.e., hearing merely manifests an already-existing sound for the listener rather than producing it.

Note: This sutra marks the turn from purvapaksha (the preceding opponent's case for non-eternality, 1.1.6-17) to Jaimini's own siddhanta establishing sound's eternality, which the remaining sutras of the pada (1.1.19-32) defend.

सर्वत्र यौगपद्यात्

sarvatra yaugapadyāt

Because it is heard everywhere simultaneously [by many listeners at once].

संख्याभावात्

saṁkhyābhāvāt

Because there is no [multiplication in the] number [of the word itself], however many hear it.

अनपेक्षत्वात्

anapekṣatvāt

Because [its cognition] is independent [of anything else, unlike a produced effect].

प्रख्याभावाच् च योगस्य

prakhyābhāvāc ca yogasya

And because there is no direct evidence (prakhyā) of a productive conjunction (yoga) — sound is never actually perceived being produced, only being manifested.

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च

liṅgadarśanāc ca

And because the inferential mark (liṅga) [of its eternality] is [directly] observed.

उत्पत्तौ वावचनाः स्युर् अर्थस्यातन्निमित्तत्वात्

utpattau vāvacanāḥ syur arthasyātannimittatvāt

If [sound] is held to have origination [i.e. is a product], then [Vedic] utterances would become avacana (void of authority), because the [ritual] purpose has no causal connection with such origination.

Note: Source reads उत्त्पत्तौ with a doubled त्; corrected to उत्पत्तौ (utpattau), a transcription artifact.

तद्भूतानां क्रियार्थेन सामाम्नायोऽर्थस्य तन्निमित्तत्वात्

tadbhūtānāṁ kriyārthena sāmāmnāyo'rthasya tannimittatvāt

Since these [words] are [eternally] existent (bhūta), their collocation (sāmāmnāya) belongs with the ritual purpose (kriyārtha), because the [ritual] object's [validity] has that [eternal word] as its cause.

Note: Source reads निमित्तत्त्वात् with an extra त् (doubling त्त्वात्); corrected to निमित्तत्वात् (nimittatvāt), a transcription artifact.

लोके सन्नियमात् प्रयोगसन्निकर्षः स्यात्

loke sanniyamāt prayogasannikarṣaḥ syāt

In ordinary [worldly] usage (loka), the connection (sannikarṣa) between a word's employment and its meaning comes about through fixed convention (sanniyama).

वेदांश् चैके सन्निकर्षं पुरुषाख्याः

vedāṁś caike sannikarṣaṁ puruṣākhyāḥ

And some [teachers] hold that even the Veda's [word-meaning] connection is [established by] human convention (puruṣākhya) — a view Jaimini goes on to reject.

अनित्यदर्शनाच् च

anityadarśanāc ca

And because non-eternality [of ordinary words] is [directly] observed [the opponent's supporting reason].

उक्तं तु शब्दपूर्वत्वम्

uktaṁ tu śabdapūrvatvam

But the word's priority (śabdapūrvatva) [over any act of convention-making] has already been stated — a word must exist and be understood before any convention can employ it, so convention cannot be its origin.

आख्या प्रवचनात्

ākhyā pravacanāt

The designation (ākhyā) comes from [continuous] teaching/transmission (pravacana), not from an original act of convention.

परन्तु श्रुतिसामान्यमात्रम्

parantu śrutisāmānyamātram

But this is merely a matter of general resemblance in what is heard (śruti-sāmānya) — not proof that the word is newly produced each time.

कृते वा विनियोगः स्यात् कर्मणः संबन्धात्

kṛte vā viniyogaḥ syāt karmaṇaḥ saṁbandhāt

Or, [the word's] application (viniyoga) [in the Veda] comes about through its connection with the [ritual] act (karma) to be performed.

Note: Closes Pada 1's shabda-nityatva debate and transitions into Pada 2's extended treatment of arthavada (explanatory Vedic passages) and their relation to injunction (vidhi).

आम्नायस्य क्रियार्थत्वाद् आनर्थक्यम् अतदर्थानां तस्माद् अनित्यम् उच्यते

āmnāyasya kriyārthatvād ānarthakyam atadarthānāṁ tasmād anityam ucyate

[Objection:] Since the Vedic text (āmnāya) has ritual action (kriyā) as its purpose, passages not serving that purpose would be pointless (ānarthakya); therefore such passages [arthavādas, explanatory statements] are said to be anitya (non-authoritative).

Note: Opens Pada 2's extended inquiry into arthavāda (explanatory/eulogistic Vedic passages): whether they carry independent authority, or are meaningful only as subordinate to injunctions (vidhi).

शास्त्रदृष्टाविरोधाच् च

śāstradṛṣṭāvirodhāc ca

And because [this view] does not conflict with what is established (dṛṣṭa) in scripture (śāstra).

तथाफलाभावात्

tathā phalābhāvāt

Likewise, because there is no [independent] result (phala) [from an arthavāda taken alone].

अन्यानर्थक्यात्

anyānarthakyāt

Because otherwise [taken independently] they would be pointless.

अभागिप्रतिषेधाच् च

abhāgipratiṣedhāc ca

And because what is not a participant/share [in the ritual act] is [thereby] excluded [from independent authority].

अनित्यसंयोगात्

anityasaṁyogāt

Because their connection [with the ritual act] is non-permanent/incidental.

विधिना त्व् एकवाक्यत्वात् स्तुत्यर्थेन विधीनां स्युः

vidhinā tv ekavākyatvāt stutyarthena vidhīnāṁ syuḥ

[Reply:] But, forming a single sentence-unit (ekavākyatā) with the injunction (vidhi), [arthavādas] serve the injunctions through the purpose of praise (stuti).

तुल्यं च साम्प्रदायिकम्

tulyaṁ ca sāmpradāyikam

And this is likewise consistent with tradition (sāmpradāyika).

आप्ता चानुपपत्तिः प्रयोगे हि विरोधः स्याच् छब्दार्थस् त्व् अप्रयोगभूतस् तस्माद् उपपद्येत

āptā cānupapattiḥ prayoge hi virodhaḥ syāc chabdārthas tv aprayogabhūtas tasmād upapadyeta

And there is indeed an evident incongruity (anupapatti): taken independently, [an arthavāda] would conflict [with fact] in literal application (prayoga); but the word's meaning, not being meant for [literal] application, is thereby consistent [when read as praise].

गुणवादस् तु

guṇavādas tu

But that statement is a guṇavāda — a figurative/secondary assertion.

रूपात् प्रायात्

rūpāt prāyāt

On account of its [linguistic] form, which is for the most part [hyperbolic].

दूरभूयस्त्वात्

dūrabhūyastvāt

Because of its being far removed [from literal fact] and excessive (bhūyastva).

अपराधात् कर्तुश् च पुत्रदर्शनम्

aparādhāt kartuś ca putradarśanam

And [for instance,] the mention of [harm to] a son is due to a fault of the agent [i.e. is illustrative, not a literal cosmic claim].

आकालिकेप्सा

ākālikepsā

[It expresses] a desire (īpsā) for an immediate/untimely (ākālika) result.

विद्याप्रशंसा

vidyāpraśaṁsā

[This is] merely a commendation of knowledge (vidyā-praśaṁsā).

सर्वत्वम् आधिकारिकम्

sarvatvam ādhikārikam

The statement of universality (sarvatva) pertains to [ritual] eligibility (adhikāra).

फलस्य कर्मनिष्पत्तेस् तेषां लोकवत्परिमाणतः फलविशेषः स्यात्

phalasya karmaniṣpattes teṣāṁ lokavat parimāṇataḥ phalaviśeṣaḥ syāt

The result's accomplishment [depends] on the completion of the ritual act; according to their measure, as in ordinary experience (lokavat), there is a corresponding distinction in the result.

अन्त्ययोर् यथोक्तम्

antyayor yathoktam

For the final two [passages], [the explanation is] as already stated.

विधिर् वा स्याद् अपूर्वत्वाद् वादमात्रं ह्य् अनर्थकम्

vidhir vā syād apūrvatvād vādamātraṁ hy anarthakam

Or [rather,] this should be an injunction (vidhi), because it conveys something new (apūrvatva); for a mere assertion (vādamātra) with no injunctive force would be pointless.

Note: Source reads वादमात्रम without the expected final anusvara before ह्य्; read as वादमात्रं (vādamātraṁ), a likely dropped anusvara-sign, transcription artifact.

लोकवद् इति चेत्

lokavad iti cet

If it be objected: [this is merely descriptive,] "as in ordinary usage" (lokavat) —

न पूर्वत्वात्

na pūrvatvāt

— [reply:] No, because it is not [already] previously known.

उक्तं तु वाक्यशेषत्वम्

uktaṁ tu vākyaśeṣatvam

But it has already been stated that [such a passage] is a vākyaśeṣa — a supplementary/completing part of the injunctive sentence.

विधिश् चानर्थकः क्वचित् तस्मात् स्तुतिः प्रतीयेत तत्सामान्याद् इतरेषु तथात्वम्

vidhiś cānarthakaḥ kvacit tasmāt stutiḥ pratīyeta tatsāmānyād itareṣu tathātvam

And in some cases the injunction itself seems pointless; therefore it should be understood as praise (stuti); on that generalization, the same understanding applies to other [similar] cases.

प्रकरणे सम्भवन्नपकर्षो न कल्प्येत विध्यानर्थक्यं हि तं प्रति

prakaraṇe sambhavann apakarṣo na kalpyeta vidhyānarthakyaṁ hi taṁ prati

A transference (apakarṣa) possible within the topical section (prakaraṇa) should not be assumed, for it would render the injunction pointless with respect to that word.

विधौ च वाक्यभेदः स्यात्

vidhau ca vākyabhedaḥ syāt

And [if so construed,] an improper splitting of the sentence (vākyabheda) would result in the injunction.

हेतुर् वा स्याद् अर्थवत्वोपपत्तिभ्याम्

hetur vā syād arthavatvopapattibhyām

Or, on grounds of both meaningfulness (arthavattva) and logical consistency (upapatti), it could instead be construed as the hetu — the reason — for the injunction.

स्थितिस् तु शब्दपूर्वत्वादचोदनाच तस्य

sthitis tu śabdapūrvatvād acodanāc ca tasya

But the [factual] state of affairs described is taken as established because of the word's authoritative priority and because that passage is not itself an injunction (acodana).

व्यर्थे स्तुतिर् अन्याय्येति चेत्

vyarthe stutir anyāyyeti cet

If it be objected that praise directed at something untrue/pointless (vyartha) would be improper (anyāyya) —

अर्थस् तु विधिशेषत्वाद् यथा लोके

arthas tu vidhiśeṣatvād yathā loke

— [reply:] but its meaning [is validated] precisely because it is a supplement (śeṣa) to the injunction, just as in ordinary usage (loke).

यदि च हेतुर् अवतिष्ठेत निर्देशात् सामान्याद् इति चेद् अवस्था विधीनां स्यात्

yadi ca hetur avatiṣṭheta nirdeśāt sāmānyād iti ced avasthā vidhīnāṁ syāt

And if the reason (hetu) is held to stand established on the basis of either a specific statement or a general one, an infinite regress (avasthā) among injunctions would result.

तदर्थशास्त्रात्

tadarthaśāstrāt

Because [the Veda] is authoritative scripture (śāstra) precisely for that [ritual] purpose.

वाक्यनियमात्

vākyaniyamāt

Because of the fixed rule governing [interpretation of] the sentence (vākya).

बुद्धिशास्त्रात्

buddhiśāstrāt

Because it is authoritative with respect to [producing right] understanding (buddhi).

अविद्यमानवचनात्

avidyamānavacanāt

Because it speaks of what is otherwise not evident (avidyamāna).

अचेतनेऽर्थबन्धनात्

acetane'rthabandhanāt

Because [ritual] meaning is attached even to an insentient thing (acetana).

अर्थविप्रतिषेधात्

arthavipratiṣedhāt

Because otherwise there would be a mutual contradiction of meaning (arthavipratiṣedha).

स्वाध्यायवद्वचनात्

svādhyāyavad vacanāt

Because its statement is like that of svādhyāya — Vedic recitation, to be maintained regardless of its literal factual content.

अविज्ञेयात्

avijñeyāt

Because [that object] is unknowable [by ordinary means].

अनित्यसंयोगान् मन्त्रार्थानर्थक्यम्

anityasaṁyogān mantrārthānarthakyam

[Objection:] Because of their non-permanent conjunction [with the ritual act], the literal meaning of a mantra is said to be pointless [if taken independently].

अविशिष्टस् तु वाक्यार्थः

aviśiṣṭas tu vākyārthaḥ

[Reply:] But the meaning of a mantra-sentence is not different in kind (aviśiṣṭa) from other Vedic sentences.

गुणार्थेन पुनः श्रुतिः

guṇārthena punaḥ śrutiḥ

For a subordinate/auxiliary purpose (guṇārtha), the mantra's text is [re-]employed.

परिसंख्या

parisaṁkhyā

[Or it functions as] parisaṁkhyā — an exclusive restriction.

अर्थवादो वा

arthavādo vā

Or else it is simply an arthavāda (explanatory passage).

अविरुद्धं परम्

aviruddhaṁ param

Of these, whichever [interpretation] is non-contradictory [with the rest of scripture] is preferable.

संप्रैषे कर्मगर्हानुपालम्भः संस्कारत्वात्

samprаiṣe karmagarhānupālambhaḥ saṁskāratvāt

In a command-formula (sampraiṣa), a seeming censure of the act is not a real fault (anupālambha), because it functions merely as a saṁskāra — a purifying formality.

Note: Source reads संस्कारत्त्वात् with an extra त्; corrected to संस्कारत्वात् (saṁskāratvāt), a transcription artifact.

अभिधानेऽर्थवादः

abhidhāne'rthavādaḥ

In [mere] verbal statement (abhidhāna), it is to be understood as an arthavāda.

गुणाद् अप्रतिषेधः स्यात्

guṇād apratiṣedhaḥ syāt

Because it is subordinate (guṇa), there is no [real] prohibition involved.

विद्यावचनम् असंयोगात्

vidyāvacanam asaṁyogāt

It is a statement about knowledge (vidyā), because there is no [direct ritual] connection involved.

सतः परमविज्ञानम्

sataḥ paramavijñānam

[It yields] correct knowledge (vijñāna) only of what already exists (sat), nothing beyond.

उक्तश् चानित्यसंयोगः

uktaś cānityasaṁyogaḥ

And its non-permanent connection [with the act] has already been stated.

लिङ्गोपदेशश् च तदर्थवत्

liṅgopadeśaś ca tadarthavat

And an instruction indicating a [logical] mark (liṅga) is likewise to be understood as of that same [explanatory] character.

ऊहः

ūhaḥ

[There is also] ūha — the adaptive modification [of mantra-wording to fit context].

विधिशब्दाश् च

vidhiśabdāś ca

And likewise words expressing injunction (vidhiśabda) [are to be understood accordingly].

धर्मस्य शब्दमूलत्वाद् अशब्दम् अनपेक्षं स्यात्

dharmasya śabdamūlatvād aśabdam anapekṣaṁ syāt

Since dharma has word (śabda, Vedic testimony) as its root, whatever is not [derived from] word (aśabda) would be irrelevant [for knowing dharma].

अपि वा कर्तृसामान्यात् प्रमाणम् अनुमानं स्यात्

api vā kartṛsāmānyāt pramāṇam anumānaṁ syāt

[Objection:] Or else, on the basis of general uniformity among agents (kartṛ-sāmānya), inference (anumāna) could also be a pramāṇa [for dharma].

विरोधे त्व् अनपेक्ष्यं स्याद् असति ह्य् अनुमानम्

virodhe tv anapekṣyaṁ syād asati hy anumānam

[Reply:] But in case of conflict [with word/testimony], inference should be disregarded, for inference [applies only] in the absence of [direct verbal testimony].

हेतुदर्शनाच् च

hetudarśanāc ca

And because [inference] depends on the observation of a logical reason (hetu).

शिष्टाकोपेऽविरुद्धम् इति चेत्

śiṣṭākope'viruddham iti cet

If it be said: [an inference is valid] when it does not provoke rejection by the learned (śiṣṭa), and is thus non-contradictory —

न शास्त्रपरिमाणत्वात्

na śāstraparimāṇatvāt

— [reply:] No, because scripture (śāstra) alone is the measure of dharma.

अपि वा कारणग्रहणे प्रयुक्तानि प्रतीयेरन्

api vā kāraṇagrahaṇe prayuktāni pratīyeran

Or else, in ascertaining the cause [of the learned's conduct], such practices should be understood as [ultimately] grounded [in the Veda].

तेष्व् अदर्शनाद् विरोधस्य समा विप्रतिपत्तिः स्यात्

teṣv adarśanād virodhasya samā vipratipattiḥ syāt

When those [Vedic texts] are not found [directly], there can equally be disagreement (vipratipatti) as to any apparent contradiction.

शास्त्रस्था वा तन्निमित्तत्वात्

śāstrasthā vā tannimittatvāt

Or [such conduct] is to be held as resting on scripture, because that [scripture] is its cause.

चोदितं तु प्रतीयेताविरोधात् प्रमाणेन

coditaṁ tu pratīyetāvirodhāt pramāṇena

What is [directly] enjoined [by the Veda] should be understood [as valid] through its non-conflict with that means of knowledge.

प्रयोगशास्त्रम् इति चेत्

prayogaśāstram iti cet

If it be said: [such custom constitutes its own] "manual of practice" (prayogaśāstra) —

नासन्नियमात्

nāsanniyamāt

— [reply:] No, for want of a [fixed] governing rule, it is not established (asat).

अवाक्यशेषाच् च

avākyaśeṣāc ca

And because it is not a supplementary part (vākyaśeṣa) of any [Vedic] sentence.

सर्वत्र च प्रयोगात् सन्निधानशास्त्राच् च

sarvatra ca prayogāt sannidhānaśāstrāc ca

And [also] because of its application everywhere, and because it is a scripture of immediate context (sannidhāna-śāstra).

अनुमानव्यवस्थानात् तत्संयुक्तं प्रमाणं स्यात्

anumānavyavasthānāt tatsaṁyuktaṁ pramāṇaṁ syāt

Because of the [proper] regulation of inference, only inference conjoined with that [Vedic testimony] can be a [valid] pramāṇa.

अपि वा सर्व धर्मः स्यात् तन्न्यायत्वाद् विधानस्य

api vā sarva dharmaḥ syāt tannyāyatvād vidhānasya

Or else, everything would become dharma, since this would then be the [logical] rule governing any injunction as well.

दर्शनाद् विनियोगः स्यात्

darśanād viniyogaḥ syāt

The application (viniyoga) [of a rite/element] is established by its being [directly] found in the Veda.

लिङ्गाभावाच् च नित्यस्य

liṅgābhāvāc ca nityasya

And because there is no inferential mark (liṅga) for what is eternal (nitya).

आख्या हि देशसंयोगात्

ākhyā hi deśasaṁyogāt

For a name/designation (ākhyā) becomes meaningful through its connection with a place (deśa).

न स्याद् देशान्तरेष्व् इति चेत्

na syād deśāntareṣv iti cet

If it be objected that then [a name] should not apply in other places (deśāntara) —

स्याद्योगाख्या हि माथुरवत्

syād yogākhyā hi māthuravat

— [reply:] It is a derivative designation (yogākhyā), as with "māthura" (a name derived from Mathura, which continues to apply to the person even elsewhere).

कर्मधर्मो वा प्रवणवत्

karmadharmo vā pravaṇavat

Or it is a property arising from the action (karmadharma), like the term pravaṇa ("sloping").

तुल्यं तु कर्तृधर्मेण

tulyaṁ tu kartṛdharmeṇa

But this is comparable to [naming by] a property of the agent (kartṛdharma) as well.

प्रयोगोत्पत्यशास्त्रत्वाच् छब्देषु न व्यवस्था स्यात्

prayogotpatyaśāstratvāc chabdeṣu na vyavasthā syāt

Because there is no fixed scripture governing the origin and use [of names], no fixed rule (vyavasthā) can be laid down for words in this respect.

शब्दे प्रयत्ननिष्पत्तेर् अपराधस्य भागित्वम्

śabde prayatnaniṣpatter aparādhasya bhāgitvam

Since [correct use of] a word is achieved through deliberate effort (prayatna), there remains a possible share of fault (aparādha) on the speaker's part.

अन्यायश् चानेकशब्दत्वम्

anyāyaś cānekaśabdatvam

And having multiple words [for one thing, without a fixed rule] is anomalous (anyāya).

Note: Source reads अनेकशब्दत्त्वम् with a doubled त्; corrected to अनेकशब्दत्वम् (anekaśabdatvam), a transcription artifact.

तत्र तत्त्वम् अभियोगविशेषात् स्यात्

tatra tattvam abhiyogaviśeṣāt syāt

In that regard, the [correct] determination is established through a particular sustained practice/repetition (abhiyoga-viśeṣa).

तदशक्तिश् चानुरूपत्वात्

tadaśaktiś cānurūpatvāt

And there is an inability [to fix this fully by practice alone], because [a word] is [merely] conformable (anurūpa) to its object, not identical with one fixed form.

एकदेशत्वाच् च विभक्तिव्यत्यये स्यात्

ekadeśatvāc ca vibhaktivyatyaye syāt

And because of [merely] partial identity (ekadeśatva), a change of grammatical case (vibhakti-vyatyaya) may occur.

Note: Source reads एक देशत्वाच् (split as two words) and विभाक्तिव्यत्यये (with a long ā); rejoined as एकदेशत्वाच् and corrected to विभक्तिव्यत्यये (vibhaktivyatyaye, standard grammatical term for 'case'), likely transcription artifacts.

प्रयोगचोदनाभावाद् अर्थैकत्वम् अविभागात्

prayogacodanābhāvād arthaikatvam avibhāgāt

In the absence of a regulating injunction for a specific usage, unity of meaning (arthaikatva) should be assumed, due to non-division (avibhāga).

अद्रव्यशब्दत्वात्

adravyaśabdatvāt

Because [the word] denotes not an individual substance (adravya), but rather a generic property [jāti].

अन्यदर्शनाच् च

anyadarśanāc ca

And because the same is observed elsewhere.

आकृतिस् तु क्रियार्थत्वात्

ākṛtis tu kriyārthatvāt

But it is the generic form (ākṛti, i.e. the universal/jāti) that is denoted, because the [Vedic] purpose pertains [always generally] to action (kriyā).

Note: Sutra 1.3.33 states the Mimamsa doctrine — shared with the grammarian tradition — that a word primarily denotes the generic form/universal (ākṛti/jāti) rather than the particular individual (vyakti); a foundational doctrine for later Mimamsa word-meaning theory.

न क्रिया स्याद् इति चेदर्थान्तरे विधानं न द्रव्यम् इति चेत्

na kriyā syād iti ced arthāntare vidhānaṁ na dravyam iti cet

If it be objected that then action [itself] would not be [properly] established, and if it be further held that the injunction pertains to a different sense [the universal], not to an individual substance (dravya) —

तदर्थत्वात् प्रयोगस्याविभागः

tadarthatvāt prayogasyāvibhāgaḥ

— [reply:] Because the individual substance too serves that same [ritual] purpose, there is no real division (avibhāga) in actual usage between the universal and the individual it is instantiated in.

उक्तं समाम्नायैदम् अर्थ्यं तस्मात् सर्वं तदर्थं स्यात्

uktaṁ samāmnāyaidam arthyaṁ tasmāt sarvaṁ tadarthaṁ syāt

It has been stated that the [entire] sacred collocation (samāmnāya) is purposive (arthya); therefore everything in it should be understood as serving that [ritual] purpose.

अपि वा नामधेयं स्याद् यदुत्पत्तावपूर्वम् अविधायकत्वात्

api vā nāmadheyaṁ syād yad utpattāv apūrvam avidhāyakatvāt

Or else, whatever [word] is unprecedented (apūrva) in connection with the [rite's] origination may be a nāmadheya — a proper name [of the rite] — because it is not itself injunctive (avidhāyaka).

Note: Opens Pada 4's inquiry into nāmadheya (the proper names of Vedic rites) and its relation to guṇa (subordinate elements) and pradhāna (the principal act).

यस्मिन् गुणोपदेशः प्रधानतोऽभिसम्बन्धः

yasmin guṇopadeśaḥ pradhānato'bhisambandhaḥ

[A nāmadheya is] that in which the mention of a subordinate element (guṇa) is connected [primarily] to the principal act (pradhāna).

तत्प्रख्यञ् चान्यशास्त्रम्

tatprakhyañ cānyaśāstram

And it is also known (prakhya) in that same form in other [worldly, non-Vedic] usage.

तद्व्यपदेशं च

tadvyapadeśaṁ ca

And its designation (vyapadeśa) is given on that same basis.

नामधेये गुणश्रुतेः स्याद् विधानम् इति चेत्

nāmadheye guṇaśruteḥ syād vidhānam iti cet

If it be objected that, since a nāmadheya mentions a subordinate element, it too should count as an injunction (vidhāna) —

तुल्यत्वात् क्रिययोर् न

tulyatvāt kriyayor na

— [reply:] No, because the two actions [named and enjoined] are equivalent (tulyatva).

ऐकशब्द्ये परार्थवत्

aikaśabdye parārthavat

In being a single word (aikaśabdya), it functions like something serving another's — the principal act's — purpose (parārthavat).

तद्गुणास् तु विधायेर् अन्नविभागाद् विधानार्थे न चेद् अन्येन शिष्टाः

tadguṇās tu vidhāyer annavibhāgād vidhānārthe na ced anyena śiṣṭāḥ

But its subordinate elements (guṇa), if they have not already been enjoined (śiṣṭa) elsewhere, would — because [the sentence] is undivided — be taken as enjoined for that same purpose of the injunction.

बर्हिराज्ययोर् असंस्कारे शब्दलाभाद् अतच्छब्दः

barhirājyayor asaṁskāre śabdalābhād atacchabdaḥ

Even when the barhis (sacred grass) and ājya (clarified butter) remain unconsecrated, they already bear that name; hence that word is not [restrictively] denoting only the consecrated substance.

प्रोक्षणीष्व् अर्थसंयोगात्

prokṣaṇīṣv arthasaṁyogāt

[This applies] likewise in the case of the prokṣaṇī (sprinkling-water vessels), because of the name's connection with its [ritual] purpose (artha).

तथानिर्मन्थ्ये

tathā nirmanthye

Likewise in the case of nirmanthya (fire produced by churning).

वैश्वदेवे विकल्प इति चेत्

vaiśvadeve vikalpa iti cet

If it be said that in the Vaiśvadeva [rite] there is an option (vikalpa) —

न वा प्रकरणात् प्रत्यक्षविधानाच् च न हि प्रकरणं द्रव्यस्य

na vā prakaraṇāt pratyakṣavidhānāc ca na hi prakaraṇaṁ dravyasya

— [reply:] No — because of both the [topical] context (prakaraṇa) and the direct injunction; for context (prakaraṇa) does not govern the choice of a substance (dravya).

मिथश् चानर्थसम्बन्धः

mithaś cānarthasambandhaḥ

And otherwise there would be a mutual meaningless connection (anarthasambandha).

परार्थत्वाद् गुणानाम्

parārthatvād guṇānām

Because subordinate elements (guṇa) exist for the sake of another (parārtha) — the principal act.

पूर्ववन्तोऽविधानार्थास् तत्सामर्थ्यं समाम्नाये

pūrvavanto'vidhānārthās tatsāmarthyaṁ samāmnāye

Like the preceding cases, these are not [themselves] for the purpose of [new] injunction; their capability (sāmarthya) lies within the sacred text (samāmnāya) itself.

गुणस्य तु विधानार्थे तद्गुणाः प्रयोगे स्युर् अनर्थका न हि तं प्रत्यर्थवत्तास्ति

guṇasya tu vidhānārthe tadguṇāḥ prayoge syur anarthakā na hi taṁ pratyarthavattāsti

But if a subordinate element itself were taken as the purpose of injunction, then its own sub-elements would become pointless in application, for they would have no independent meaningfulness with respect to it.

तच्छेषो नोपपद्यते

tacchheṣo nopapadyate

[Otherwise] its status as a supplement (śeṣa) [to the principal] would not be tenable.

अविभागाद् विधानार्थे स्तुत्यर्थेनोपपद्येरन्

avibhāgād vidhānārthe stutyarthenopapadyeran

Because of non-division from the principal injunction, they are instead rendered consistent through the purpose of praise (stuti).

कारणं स्याद् इति चेत्

kāraṇaṁ syād iti cet

If it be said that they could instead be a cause/reason (kāraṇa) [for the injunction] —

आनर्थक्याद् अकारणं कर्तुर् हि कारणानि गुणार्थो हि विधीयते

ānarthakyād akāraṇaṁ kartur hi kāraṇāni guṇārtho hi vidhīyate

— [reply:] Because of its pointlessness, it is not [really] a cause; for reasons/causes pertain to the agent (kartṛ), whereas here it is the purpose of the subordinate element (guṇārtha) that is being enjoined.

तत्सिद्धिः

tatsiddhiḥ

Its (the subordinate element's) establishment [follows accordingly, in connection with the principal act].

जातिः

jātiḥ

[One criterion for resolving doubtful cases is] jāti — genus/class.

सारूप्यात्

sārūpyāt

[Or] on the basis of sārūpya — similarity of form.

प्रशंसा

praśaṁsā

[Or] praśaṁsā — commendation/eminence.

भूमा

bhūmā

[Or] bhūmā — numerical preponderance.

लिङ्गसमवायात्

liṅgasamavāyāt

[Or] on the basis of liṅgasamavāya — the concurrence of an indicatory mark.

सन्दिग्धेषु वाक्यशेषात्

sandigdheṣu vākyaśeṣāt

In doubtful cases, [the matter should be decided] on the basis of the vākyaśeṣa — the sentence's supplementary portion.

अर्थाद् वा कल्पनैकदेशत्वात्

arthād vā kalpanaikadeśatvāt

Or on the basis of contextual sense (artha), because this rests on the principle of minimal assumption (kalpanaikadeśatva — postulating no more than what is strictly necessary).

Note: Sutras 1.4.23-30 form the traditional closing list of criteria (guṇa-vyavasthā-hetu) for resolving doubtful cases of subordination (guṇa) in Mimamsa exegesis, and 1.4.30 closes Adhyaya 1 of the Purva Mimamsa Sutras.

भावार्थाः कर्मशब्दास् तेभ्यः क्रिया प्रतीयेतैष ह्य् अर्थो विधीयते ॥ १ ॥

bhāvārthāḥ karmaśabdās tebhyaḥ kriyā pratīyetaiṣa hy artho vidhīyate || 1 ||

Words denoting a ritual act (karma-śabda) have bhāva (a process-to-be-accomplished) as their sense; from them an action is understood, for it is this bhāva that is enjoined (vidhīyate).

सर्वेषां भावोऽर्थ इति चेत् ॥ २ ॥

sarveṣāṁ bhāvo'rtha iti cet || 2 ||

[Objection:] If it be said that bhāva ("to be done") is alike the sense of all words...

येषाम् उत्पत्तौ स्वे प्रयोगे रूपोपलब्धिस् तानि नामानि तस्मात् तेभ्यः पराकाङ्क्षा भूतत्वात् स्वे प्रयोगै ॥ ३ ॥

yeṣām utpattau sve prayoge rūpopalabdhis tāni nāmāni tasmāt tebhyaḥ parākāṅkṣā bhūtatvāt sve prayogai || 3 ||

[Reply:] Those words whose own form is grasped, independently, in their very usage at their origin (coining) -- these are nāmāni (nouns); hence, because they denote something already-become (bhūta), they leave a further expectancy (parākāṅkṣā) when standing alone in their own use.

येषां तूत्पत्ताव् अर्थे स्वे प्रयोगो न विद्यते तान्य् आख्यातानि तस्मात् तेभ्यः प्रतीयेताश्रितत्वात् प्रयोगस्य ॥ ४ ॥

yeṣāṁ tūtpattāv arthe sve prayogo na vidyate tāny ākhyātāni tasmāt tebhyaḥ pratīyetāśritatvāt prayogasya || 4 ||

But those words whose own use is not confined to the sense of their origin -- these are ākhyātāni (verbs); hence an action is understood from them, because their use is dependent (āśrita) on a process, not on a fixed already-established thing.

चोदना पुनर् आरम्भः ॥ ५ ॥

codanā punar ārambhaḥ || 5 ||

Codanā (the Vedic injunction), moreover, is what impels the undertaking (ārambha) of an action.

तानि द्वैधं गुणप्रधानभूतानि ॥ ६ ॥

tāni dvaidhaṁ guṇapradhānabhūtāni || 6 ||

These [ritual acts] are of two kinds: those in the nature of guṇa (subsidiary, accessory) and those in the nature of pradhāna (principal).

यैर् द्रव्यं न चिकीर्ष्यते तानि प्रधानभूतानि द्रव्यस्य गुणभूतत्वात् ॥ ७ ॥

yair dravyaṁ na cikīrṣyate tāni pradhānabhūtāni dravyasya guṇabhūtatvāt || 7 ||

Those [acts] by which no substance (dravya) is meant to be produced are in the nature of the principal (pradhāna), because there the substance is [merely] subsidiary (guṇabhūta).

यैस् तु द्रव्यं चिकीर्ष्यते गुणस् तत्र प्रतीयेत तस्य द्रव्यप्रधानत्वात् ॥ ८ ॥

yais tu dravyaṁ cikīrṣyate guṇas tatra pratīyeta tasya dravyapradhānatvāt || 8 ||

But those [acts] by which a substance is meant to be produced -- there [the act] is understood as subsidiary (guṇa), because for that [act] the substance is the principal thing (dravya-pradhānatva).

धर्ममात्रे तु कर्म स्याद् अनिर्वृत्तेः प्रयाजवत् ॥ ९ ॥

dharmamātre tu karma syād anirvṛtteḥ prayājavat || 9 ||

But where only dharma [duty as such] is performed, the act itself would be principal, since it is not accomplished (nirvṛtti) by any substance -- as with the prayājas (the preliminary oblations).

तुल्यश्रुतित्वाद् वेतरैः सधर्मः स्यात् ॥ १० ॥

tulyaśrutitvād vetaraiḥ sadharmaḥ syāt || 10 ||

Because of being equally (directly) enjoined by scripture (tulya-śrutitva), it [such a dharma-only act] would share the same status (sadharma) with the other [principal acts].

द्रव्योपदेश इति चेत् ॥ ११ ॥

dravyopadeśa iti cet || 11 ||

[Objection:] If it be said that what is [there] taught is merely the mention of a substance (dravyopadeśa)...

न तदर्थत्वाल् लोकवत् तस्य च शेषभूतत्वात् ॥ १२ ॥

na tadarthatvāl lokavat tasya ca śeṣabhūtatvāt || 12 ||

[Reply:] No -- because that [substance] is for the sake of that [act] (tad-arthatva), as in ordinary usage (lokavat), and because it is subordinate (śeṣabhūta) to it.

स्तुतशस्त्रयोस् तु संस्कारो याज्यावद् देवताभिधानत्वात् ॥ १३ ॥

stutaśastrayos tu saṁskāro yājyāvad devatābhidhānatvāt || 13 ||

But the refinement (saṃskāra) of the stuta (Sāman hymn of praise) and śastra (recited Ṛk praise) is, like the yājyā formula, [an accessory of the principal act], because both involve the naming (abhidhāna) of the deity.

अर्थेन त्व् अपकृष्येत देवतानाम् अचोदनार्थस्य गुणभूतत्वात् ॥ १४ ॥

arthena tv apakṛṣyeta devatānām acodanārthasya guṇabhūtatvāt || 14 ||

But by its [own] sense it would be drawn down [to subsidiary status], because the mere naming of the deity, having no separate injunctive purpose, is [only] subsidiary (guṇabhūta).

वशावद् वा गुणार्थं स्यात् ॥ १५ ॥

vaśāvad vā guṇārthaṁ syāt || 15 ||

Or, like the vaśā [the cow-offering], it would serve a subsidiary purpose (guṇārtha).

न श्रुतिसमवायित्वात् ॥ १६ ॥

na śrutisamavāyitvāt || 16 ||

[This parallel with the vaśā does] not [hold], because of [its] direct inherence in scriptural mention (śruti-samavāyitva).

व्यपदेशभेदाच् च ॥ १७ ॥

vyapadeśabhedāc ca || 17 ||

And also because of a difference in designation (vyapadeśa-bheda).

गुणश् चानर्थकः स्यात् ॥ १८ ॥

guṇaś cānarthakaḥ syāt || 18 ||

And [otherwise] the subsidiary [naming] would become meaningless (anarthaka).

तथा याज्यापुरोरुचोः ॥ १९ ॥

tathā yājyāpurorucoḥ || 19 ||

Likewise for the yājyā and purorucaḥ (invitatory, anuvākyā) formulas.

वशायाम् अर्थसमवायात् ॥ २० ॥

vaśāyām arthasamavāyāt || 20 ||

In the vaśā, however, [it is subsidiary] because of the inherence of [its own separate] sense (artha-samavāya).

यच् चेति वार्थवत्त्वात् स्यात् ॥ २१ ॥

yac ceti vārthavattvāt syāt || 21 ||

And [the passage] 'yac ca' would likewise [be established so], on account of its own meaningfulness (arthavattva).

न त्वाम्नातेषु ॥ २२ ॥

na tvāmnāteṣu || 22 ||

But not among those [texts] that are [independently] recited/enjoined (āmnāta).

दृश्यते ॥ २३ ॥

dṛśyate || 23 ||

[Such independent mention] is indeed observed.

अपि वा श्रुतिसंयोगात् प्रकरणे स्तौतिशंसती क्रियोत्पात्तिं विदध्याताम् ॥ २४ ॥

api vā śrutisaṁyogāt prakaraṇe stautiśaṁsatī kriyotpāttiṁ vidadhyātām || 24 ||

Or rather, by virtue of direct scriptural connection (śruti-saṃyoga), the praising and reciting [stauti and śaṃsatī], in their own context (prakaraṇa), might themselves enjoin the origination of an [independent] act.

शब्दपृथक्त्वाच् च ॥ २५ ॥

śabdapṛthaktvāc ca || 25 ||

And also because of the separateness of the words [used].

अनर्थकं च तद्वचनम् ॥ २६ ॥

anarthakaṁ ca tadvacanam || 26 ||

And [otherwise] that statement would be meaningless.

अन्यश् चार्थः प्रतीयते ॥ २७ ॥

anyaś cārthaḥ pratīyate || 27 ||

And moreover a different sense is understood [there].

अभिधानं च कर्मवत् ॥ २८ ॥

abhidhānaṁ ca karmavat || 28 ||

And there is [independent] statement (abhidhāna) too, just as in the case of an act.

फलनिर्वृत्तिश् च ॥ २९ ॥

phalanirvṛttiś ca || 29 ||

And also the accomplishment of a result (phala-nirvṛtti) [confirms this].

विधिमन्त्रयोर् ऐकार्थ्यम् ऐकशब्द्यात् ॥ ३० ॥

vidhimantrayor aikārthyam aikaśabdyāt || 30 ||

There is unity of purport (aikārthya) between the injunctive text (vidhi) and the mantra, on account of their unity of wording (aikaśabdya).

अपि वा प्रयोगसामर्थ्यान् मन्त्रोऽभिधानवाची स्यात् ॥ ३१ ॥

api vā prayogasāmarthyān mantro'bhidhānavācī syāt || 31 ||

Or rather, by the force of [its] employment in use (prayoga-sāmarthya), the mantra would itself be a name-expressing (abhidhānavācī) [term for the act].

तच्चोदकेषु मन्त्राख्या ॥ ३२ ॥

taccodakeṣu mantrākhyā || 32 ||

The designation 'mantra' applies to those [texts] that enjoin/impel that [act] (tac-codaka).

शेषे ब्राह्मणशब्दः ॥ ३३ ॥

śeṣe brāhmaṇaśabdaḥ || 33 ||

In the remainder, the word 'brāhmaṇa' [applies].

अनाम्नातेष्व् अमन्त्रत्वमाम्नातेषु हि विभागः ॥ ३४ ॥

anāmnāteṣv amantratvamāmnāteṣu hi vibhāgaḥ || 34 ||

In [texts] not [expressly so] designated there is no status of being a mantra; for the division [into mantra and brāhmaṇa] rests on express designation (āmnāta).

तेषाम् ऋग्यत्रार्थवशेन पादव्यवस्था ॥ ३५ ॥

teṣām ṛgyatrārthavaśena pādavyavasthā || 35 ||

Among these [mantras], that one in which the arrangement into pādas (metrical quarters) follows the sense (artha-vaśena) is a ṛc.

गीतिषु स माख्या ॥ ३६ ॥

gītiṣu sa mākhyā || 36 ||

Among [texts that are] sung (gīti), that [mantra] bears the designation 'sāman'.

शेषे यजुः शब्दाः ॥ ३७ ॥

śeṣe yajuḥ śabdāḥ || 37 ||

In the remainder [neither ṛc nor sāman], the word 'yajus' [applies].

निगदो वा चतुर्थं स्याद् धर्मविशेषात् ॥ ३८ ॥

nigado vā caturthaṁ syād dharmaviśeṣāt || 38 ||

Or, nigada (a mantra recited aloud, without melody, simultaneously with the act) would be a fourth [category], on account of a distinctive property (dharma-viśeṣa).

व्यपदेशाच् च ॥ ३९ ॥

vyapadeśāc ca || 39 ||

And also because of [its] separate designation.

यजूंषि वा तद्रूपत्वात् ॥ ४० ॥

yajūṁṣi vā tadrūpatvāt || 40 ||

Or, [nigadas] are [themselves] yajuses, because they are of that same form.

वचनाद् धर्मविशेषः ॥ ४१ ॥

vacanād dharmaviśeṣaḥ || 41 ||

The distinctive property [of nigada, aloud recitation] is [known] from express statement.

अर्थाच् च ॥ ४२ ॥

arthāc ca || 42 ||

And also from [contextual] sense.

गुणार्थो व्यपदेशः ॥ ४३ ॥

guṇārtho vyapadeśaḥ || 43 ||

The [separate] designation [nigada] serves a subsidiary purpose (guṇārtha) [merely indicating manner of recitation, not a new category].

सर्वेषाम् इति चेत् ॥ ४४ ॥

sarveṣām iti cet || 44 ||

[Objection:] If [this] applied to all [mantras alike]...

न ऋग्व्यपदेशात् ॥ ४५ ॥

na ṛgvyapadeśāt || 45 ||

No -- because the designation 'ṛc' [is already fixed by other criteria].

Note: Wikisource prints a stray ASCII comma after the initial negative particle ('न,'); removed as a transcription artifact per this project's established policy (cf. Nyaya Sutras build), consistent with the recurring 'na, ...' comma pattern.

अर्थैकत्वाद् एकं वाक्यं साकाङ्क्षं चेद् विभागे स्यात् ॥ ४६ ॥

arthaikatvād ekaṁ vākyaṁ sākāṅkṣaṁ ced vibhāge syāt || 46 ||

Because of unity of sense (arthaikatva), [a text] is a single sentence (vākya) if, upon division, [the parts] would retain mutual expectancy (sākāṅkṣa).

समेषु वाक्यभेदः स्यात् ॥ ४७ ॥

sameṣu vākyabhedaḥ syāt || 47 ||

Among equal/parallel [clauses, without such expectancy], there would be a division into separate sentences (vākya-bheda).

अनुषङ्गो वाक्यसमाप्तिः सर्वेषु तुल्ययोगित्वात् ॥ ४८ ॥

anuṣaṅgo vākyasamāptiḥ sarveṣu tulyayogitvāt || 48 ||

The carrying-over (anuṣaṅga, of a shared word into successive clauses) continues up to the completion of the sentence, because of [its] equal applicability (tulyayogitva) to all [the clauses].

व्यवायान् नानुषज्येत ॥ ४९ ॥

vyavāyān nānuṣajyeta || 49 ||

It [the carried-over word] would not be carried over across an interruption (vyavāya).

शब्दान्तरे कर्मभेदः कृतानुबन्धत्वात् ॥ १ ॥

śabdāntare karmabhedaḥ kṛtānubandhatvāt || 1 ||

Where a different word [names an act], there is difference of act (karma-bheda), because a distinct connecting link (anubandha) has thereby been established (kṛta).

एकस्यैवं पुनः श्रुतिर् अविशेषाद् अनर्थकं हि स्यात् ॥ २ ॥

ekasyaivaṁ punaḥ śrutir aviśeṣād anarthakaṁ hi syāt || 2 ||

The repeated mention (punaḥśruti) of one and the same [act] in this way would, absent any distinction, indeed be meaningless.

प्रकरणं तु पौर्णमास्यां रूपावचनात् ॥ ३ ॥

prakaraṇaṁ tu paurṇamāsyāṁ rūpāvacanāt || 3 ||

But in the case of the Paurṇamāsī [full-moon sacrifice], context (prakaraṇa) [governs], since there is no statement of a distinguishing form (rūpāvacana).

विशेषदर्शनाच् च सर्वेषां समेषु ह्य् अप्रवृत्तिः स्यात् ॥ ४ ॥

viśeṣadarśanāc ca sarveṣāṁ sameṣu hy apravṛttiḥ syāt || 4 ||

And because a distinguishing feature (viśeṣa) is observed [elsewhere]; for among undifferentiated equals, there would indeed be no [determinate] application (apravṛtti) at all.

गुणस् तु श्रुतिसंयोगात् ॥ ५ ॥

guṇas tu śrutisaṁyogāt || 5 ||

But a subsidiary [rite] (guṇa) [is determined] by its direct scriptural connection (śruti-saṃyoga).

चोदना वा गुणानां युगपच्छास्त्राच् चोदिते हि तदर्थत्वात् तस्यतस्योपदिश्येत ॥ ६ ॥

codanā vā guṇānāṁ yugapacchāstrāc codite hi tadarthatvāt tasyatasyopadiśyeta || 6 ||

Or, the injunction of the subsidiaries, though enjoined all at once (yugapat) by [one] scriptural passage, would -- since each is for the sake of that [act to which it belongs] -- be understood as taught with reference to that very act, respectively (tasya tasya).

व्यपदेशश् च तद्वत् ॥ ७ ॥

vyapadeśaś ca tadvat || 7 ||

And the designation, too, follows accordingly.

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च ॥ ८ ॥

liṅgadarśanāc ca || 8 ||

And because a confirming indicative mark (liṅga) is observed.

पौर्णमासीवद् उपांशुयाजः स्यात् ॥ ९ ॥

paurṇamāsīvad upāṁśuyājaḥ syāt || 9 ||

The Upāṃśuyāga (the silent oblation) would be treated like the Paurṇamāsī.

चोदना वाप्रकृतत्वात् ॥ १० ॥

codanā vāprakṛtatvāt || 10 ||

Or, [it has] its own injunction, because it is not [otherwise] contextually established (aprakṛtatva).

गुणोपबन्धात् ॥ ११ ॥

guṇopabandhāt || 11 ||

Because it is bound up with a subsidiary [element] (guṇopabandha).

प्राये वचनाच् च ॥ १२ ॥

prāye vacanāc ca || 12 ||

And also because of express statement in the greater number [of such cases] (prāya).

आघाराग्निहोत्रम् अरूपत्वात् ॥ १३ ॥

āghārāgnihotram arūpatvāt || 13 ||

The Āghāra [the ghee-libation] and the Agnihotra [are treated alike], since the Āghāra has no independent distinguishing form (arūpatva).

संज्ञोपबन्धात् ॥ १४ ॥

saṁjñopabandhāt || 14 ||

Because it is bound up with a [distinct] designation (saṃjñopabandha).

अप्रकृतत्वाच् च ॥ १५ ॥

aprakṛtatvāc ca || 15 ||

And because it is not [otherwise] contextually established.

चोदना वा शब्दार्थस्य प्रयोगभूतत्वात् तत्सन्निधेर् गुणार्थेन पुनः श्रुतिः ॥ १६ ॥

codanā vā śabdārthasya prayogabhūtatvāt tatsannidher guṇārthena punaḥ śrutiḥ || 16 ||

Or [it has] its own injunction, because the sense of the word becomes operative in [actual] employment (prayogabhūtatva); by virtue of its proximity (sannidhi) to that, the repeated mention (punaḥśruti) serves a subsidiary purpose.

द्रव्यसंयोगाच् चोदना पशुसोमयोः प्रकरणे ह्य् अनर्थको द्रव्यसंयोगो न हि तस्य गुणार्थेन ॥ १७ ॥

dravyasaṁyogāc codanā paśusomayoḥ prakaraṇe hy anarthako dravyasaṁyogo na hi tasya guṇārthena || 17 ||

The injunction arises from connection with the substance (dravya-saṃyoga); for in the context (prakaraṇa) of the animal- and Soma-sacrifices, the mere connection with the substance would indeed be meaningless -- since it is not made for a subsidiary purpose.

अचोदकाश् च संस्काराः ॥ १८ ॥

acodakāś ca saṁskārāḥ || 18 ||

And the saṃskāras (preparatory/purificatory rites) do not themselves enjoin [a new act] (acodaka).

तद्भेदात् कर्मणोऽभ्यासो द्रव्यपृथक्त्वाद् अनर्थकं हि स्याद् भेदो द्रव्यगुणीभावात् ॥ १९ ॥

tadbhedāt karmaṇo'bhyāso dravyapṛthaktvād anarthakaṁ hi syād bhedo dravyaguṇībhāvāt || 19 ||

From a difference in that [substance] there is repetition (abhyāsa) of the act, because the substances are separate; [otherwise] there would indeed be meaninglessness -- and this differentiation arises from the substance's being subordinate [to the act] (dravya-guṇībhāva).

संस्कारस् तु न भिद्येत परार्थत्वाद् द्रव्यस्य गुणभूतत्वात् ॥ २० ॥

saṁskāras tu na bhidyeta parārthatvād dravyasya guṇabhūtatvāt || 20 ||

But the saṃskāra (preparation) itself would not be differentiated, since it is for the sake of another (parārthatva) [the substance], the substance there being [itself] subsidiary (guṇabhūta).

पृथक्त्वनिवेशात् संख्यया कर्मभेदः स्यात् ॥ २१ ॥

pṛthaktvaniveśāt saṁkhyayā karmabhedaḥ syāt || 21 ||

By virtue of the [text's] placing of separateness (pṛthaktva-niveśa), there would be a difference of act by number (saṃkhyā).

Note: Source prints 'पृथक्त्त्वनिवेशात्' with a doubled त् (पृथक्त्त्व); normalized to the standard form 'पृथक्त्वनिवेशात्' as a mechanical transcription duplication, not a real reading.

संज्ञा चोत्पत्तिसंयोगात् ॥ २२ ॥

saṁjñā cotpattisaṁyogāt || 22 ||

And [a distinguishing] designation [arises] from connection with [its] origin (utpatti-saṃyoga).

गुणाश् चापूर्वसंयोगे वाक्योः समत्त्वात् ॥ २३ ॥

guṇāś cāpūrvasaṁyoge vākyoḥ samattvāt || 23 ||

And the subsidiaries [remain undivided] where there is connection with something new (apūrva-saṃyoga), because the two sentences are of equal status (samatva).

अगुणे तु कर्मशब्दे गुणस् तत्र प्रतीयेत ॥ २४ ॥

aguṇe tu karmaśabde guṇas tatra pratīyeta || 24 ||

But where the word for the act is not itself [marked as] subsidiary, a subsidiary [sense] would there be understood [contextually].

फलश्रुतेस् तु कर्म स्यात् फलस्य कर्मयोगित्वात् ॥ २५ ॥

phalaśrutes tu karma syāt phalasya karmayogitvāt || 25 ||

But where a result (phala) is expressly stated (phala-śruti), it would be [an independent] act, because a result always attaches to an act (karma-yogitva).

अतुल्यत्वात् तु वाक्ययोर् गुणे तस्य प्रतीयेत ॥ २६ ॥

atulyatvāt tu vākyayor guṇe tasya pratīyeta || 26 ||

But because of the inequality of the two sentences, it [the result] would be understood as pertaining to the subsidiary [element] there.

समेषु कर्मयुक्तं स्यात् ॥ २७ ॥

sameṣu karmayuktaṁ syāt || 27 ||

Among equal/parallel [sentences], it [the result] would be construed as connected with the [principal] act.

सौभरे पुरुषश्रुतेर् निधनं कामसंयोगः ॥ २८ ॥

saubhare puruṣaśruter nidhanaṁ kāmasaṁyogaḥ || 28 ||

In the Saubhara [Sāman chant], from the mention of 'puruṣa' (person), the nidhana (its concluding refrain) is [understood as] a connection with [a particular] desire (kāma-saṃyoga).

सर्वस्य वोक्तकामत्वात् तस्मिन् कामश्रुतिः स्यान् निधनार्था पुनः श्रुतिः ॥ २९ ॥

sarvasya voktakāmatvāt tasmin kāmaśrutiḥ syān nidhanārthā punaḥ śrutiḥ || 29 ||

Or, since the desire (kāma) of the whole [rite] has already been stated, the mention of desire there would be a repeated statement (punaḥśruti) [made] only for the sake of the nidhana.

गुणस् तु क्रतुसंयोगात् कर्मान्तरं प्रयोजयेत् संयोगस्याशेषभूत्वात् ॥ १ ॥

guṇas tu kratusaṁyogāt karmāntaraṁ prayojayet saṁyogasyāśeṣabhūtvāt || 1 ||

But a subsidiary [element] (guṇa), by virtue of its connection with a [particular] sacrifice (kratu-saṃyoga), may bring about [service in] a different act, because [its] connection is not exhausted/residual to one alone (aśeṣabhūtatva).

एकस्य तु लिङ्गभेदात् प्रयोजनार्थम् उच्येतैकत्वं गुणवाक्यत्वात् ॥ २ ॥

ekasya tu liṅgabhedāt prayojanārtham ucyetaikatvaṁ guṇavākyatvāt || 2 ||

But of a single [element], even where the indicative marks (liṅga) differ, unity (ekatva) [across its several occurrences] would be asserted for the sake of [establishing its] purpose, because [its text] remains a subsidiary-statement (guṇavākya).

अवेष्टौ यज्ञसंयोगात् क्रतुप्रधानमुच्यते ॥ ३ ॥

aveṣṭau yajñasaṁyogāt kratupradhānamucyate || 3 ||

In the Aveṣṭi, on account of connection with the sacrifice, [that element] is said to be governed by the [particular] rite (kratu-pradhāna).

आधाने सर्वशेषत्वात् ॥ ४ ॥

ādhāne sarvaśeṣatvāt || 4 ||

In the Agnyādhāna (the establishment of the sacred fires), [the same holds] because everything there is subordinate to the whole (sarva-śeṣatva).

अयनेषु चोदनान्तरं संज्ञोपबन्धात् ॥ ५ ॥

ayaneṣu codanāntaraṁ saṁjñopabandhāt || 5 ||

In the ayanas (extended sacrificial sessions), there is a further/separate injunction, on account of [their] being bound up with a [particular] designation (saṃjñopabandha).

अगुणाच् च कर्मचोदना ॥ ६ ॥

aguṇāc ca karmacodanā || 6 ||

And the injunction of the act (karma-codanā) proceeds from what is not [itself] subsidiary.

समाप्तं च फले वाक्यम् ॥ ७ ॥

samāptaṁ ca phale vākyam || 7 ||

And the sentence is completed in the statement of the result (phala).

विकारो वा प्रकरणात् ॥ ८ ॥

vikāro vā prakaraṇāt || 8 ||

Or, on the strength of the context (prakaraṇa), it is a modification (vikāra) [of the basic rite].

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च ॥ ९ ॥

liṅgadarśanāc ca || 9 ||

And because a confirming indicative mark is observed.

गुणात् संज्ञोपबन्धः ॥ १० ॥

guṇāt saṁjñopabandhaḥ || 10 ||

The connection with a designation (saṃjñopabandha) arises from the subsidiary [element].

समाप्तिर् अविशिष्टा ॥ ११ ॥

samāptir aviśiṣṭā || 11 ||

The completion [of the sentence] is undifferentiated (aviśiṣṭā) [applying equally throughout].

संस्कारश् चाप्रकरणेऽकर्मशब्दत्वात् ॥ १२ ॥

saṁskāraś cāprakaraṇe'karmaśabdatvāt || 12 ||

And the saṃskāra, when out of [its normal] context (aprakaraṇa), [remains subordinate], since it is not [itself] a word denoting an act (akarma-śabdatva).

यावद् उक्तं वा कर्मणः श्रुतिमूलत्वात् ॥ १३ ॥

yāvad uktaṁ vā karmaṇaḥ śrutimūlatvāt || 13 ||

Or, it extends only as far as is expressly stated, because the act has scriptural statement as its root (śruti-mūlatva).

यजतिस् तु द्रव्यफलभोक्तृसंयोगाद् एतेषां कर्मसम्बन्धात् ॥ १४ ॥

yajatis tu dravyaphalabhoktṛsaṁyogād eteṣāṁ karmasambandhāt || 14 ||

But the verb 'yajati' ('he sacrifices') signifies the connection of substance, result, and enjoyer/recipient [deity] together, because these are [all] related to the act (karma-sambandha).

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च ॥ १५ ॥

liṅgadarśanāc ca || 15 ||

And because a confirming indicative mark is observed.

विषये प्रायदर्शनात् ॥ १६ ॥

viṣaye prāyadarśanāt || 16 ||

In [this] domain (viṣaya), because such usage is generally observed (prāya-darśana).

अर्थवादोपपत्तेश् च ॥ १७ ॥

arthavādopapatteś ca || 17 ||

And because of the consistency of the arthavāda (explanatory/laudatory passage) [with this].

संयुक्तस् त्व् अर्थशब्देन तदर्थः श्रुतिसंयोगात् ॥ १८ ॥

saṁyuktas tv arthaśabdena tadarthaḥ śrutisaṁyogāt || 18 ||

But when [yajati] is joined with a word denoting a [particular] purpose, it has that [stated] sense, on account of direct scriptural connection.

पात्नीवते तु पूर्वत्वाद् अवच्छेदः ॥ १९ ॥

pātnīvate tu pūrvatvād avacchedaḥ || 19 ||

But in the Pātnīvata [offering], there is a demarcation (avaccheda), because of [its] priority (pūrvatva).

अद्रव्यत्वात् कवेले कर्मशेषः स्यात् ॥ २० ॥

adravyatvāt kavele karmaśeṣaḥ syāt || 20 ||

Because of not [pertaining to] a substance, in the kevala [rite performed alone] it would be [merely] a subordinate remainder of the act (karma-śeṣa).

अग्निस् तु लिङ्गदर्शनात् क्रतुशब्दः प्रतीयेत ॥ २१ ॥

agnis tu liṅgadarśanāt kratuśabdaḥ pratīyeta || 21 ||

But 'Agni', because a confirming indicative mark is observed, would be understood as a word denoting the sacrifice itself (kratu-śabda).

द्रव्यं वा स्याच् चोदनायास् तदर्थत्वात् ॥ २२ ॥

dravyaṁ vā syāc codanāyās tadarthatvāt || 22 ||

Or, it would be [a word for] a substance (dravya), because the injunction has that [substance] for its object (tad-arthatva).

तत्संयोगात् क्रतुस् तदाख्यः स्यात् तेन धर्मविधानानि ॥ २३ ॥

tatsaṁyogāt kratus tadākhyaḥ syāt tena dharmavidhānāni || 23 ||

By connection with that [substance], the sacrifice would bear that same name (tadākhya); through it, the [various] prescriptions of dharma are made.

प्रकरणान्तरे प्रयोजनान्यत्वम् ॥ २४ ॥

prakaraṇāntare prayojanānyatvam || 24 ||

In a different context, there is a difference of purpose (prayojanānyatva).

फलं चाकर्मसंनिधौ ॥ २५ ॥

phalaṁ cākarmasaṁnidhau || 25 ||

And the result is [stated] in the proximity of what is not [itself directly] the act.

संनिधौ त्व् अविभागात् फलार्थेन पुनः श्रुतिः ॥ २६ ॥

saṁnidhau tv avibhāgāt phalārthena punaḥ śrutiḥ || 26 ||

But because of non-separation in that proximity, the repeated mention (punaḥśruti) is for the sake of [stating] the result.

आग्नेयसूक्तहेतुत्वाद् अभ्यासेन प्रतीयेत ॥ २७ ॥

āgneyasūktahetutvād abhyāsena pratīyeta || 27 ||

Because of being the cause/occasion connected with the Āgneya hymn (āgneya-sūkta), it would be understood by repetition (abhyāsa).

अविभागात् तु कर्मणां द्विरुक्तेर् न विधीयते ॥ २८ ॥

avibhāgāt tu karmaṇāṁ dvirukter na vidhīyate || 28 ||

But because of the non-separation of the acts, nothing further is enjoined merely by [textual] repetition (dviruktatva).

अन्यार्था वा पुनः श्रुतिः ॥ २९ ॥

anyārthā vā punaḥ śrutiḥ || 29 ||

Or, the repeated mention serves a different purpose.

यावज्जीविकोऽभ्यासः कर्मधर्मः प्रकरणात् ॥ १ ॥

yāvajjīviko'bhyāsaḥ karmadharmaḥ prakaraṇāt || 1 ||

The lifelong (yāvajjīvika) repetition (abhyāsa) is a property of the act (karma-dharma), on the strength of the context (prakaraṇa).

कर्तुर् वा श्रुतिसंयोगात् ॥ २ ॥

kartur vā śrutisaṁyogāt || 2 ||

Or, it is [a property] of the agent (kartṛ), on account of direct scriptural connection.

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च कर्मधर्मे हि प्रक्रमेण नियम्येत तत्रानर्थकम् अन्यत् स्यात् ॥ ३ ॥

liṅgadarśanāc ca karmadharme hi prakrameṇa niyamyeta tatrānarthakam anyat syāt || 3 ||

And because a confirming indicative mark is observed; for if it were a property of the act, it would be restricted by the very sequence (prakrama) [of a single performance] -- and anything beyond that would there be meaningless.

व्यपवर्गं च दर्शयति कालश् चेत् कर्मभेदः स्यात् ॥ ४ ॥

vyapavargaṁ ca darśayati kālaś cet karmabhedaḥ syāt || 4 ||

And [scripture] also shows a termination (vyapavarga) of it; if it were [a fixed] time [that determines this], there would be a difference of act [each time].

अनित्यत्वात् तु नैवं स्यात् ॥ ५ ॥

anityatvāt tu naivaṁ syāt || 5 ||

But because of [its] non-permanence (anityatva), it would not be so.

विरोधश् चापि पूर्ववत् ॥ ६ ॥

virodhaś cāpi pūrvavat || 6 ||

And there is also a conflict, as before.

कर्तुस् तु धर्मनियमात् कालशास्त्रं निमित्तं स्यात् ॥ ७ ॥

kartus tu dharmaniyamāt kālaśāstraṁ nimittaṁ syāt || 7 ||

But since it is a restriction proper to the agent, the time-rule (kāla-śāstra) would [merely] be an occasioning cause (nimitta).

नामरूपधर्मविशेषपुनरुक्तिनिन्दाशाक्तिसमाप्तिवचनप्रायश्चित्तान्यार्थदर्शनाच् शाखान्तरेषु कर्मभेदः स्यात् ॥ ८ ॥

nāmarūpadharmaviśeṣapunaruktinindāśāktisamāptivacanaprāyaścittānyārthadarśanāc śākhāntareṣu karmabhedaḥ syāt || 8 ||

On account of observing [various signs, viz.] name, form, a specific property, repetition, censure, capability, statement of completion, and expiation, [pointing to] a different sense -- among different [Vedic] recensions (śākhā) there would be a difference of act.

Note: Source prints 'छाखान्तरेषु' with छ; normalized to 'शाखान्तरेषु' (śākhā, Vedic recension/branch), the only word that fits sense and grammar here -- छाखा is not a Sanskrit word, and श/छ confusion is a known Devanagari transcription slip.

एकं वा संयोगरूपचोदनाख्याविशेषात् ॥ ९ ॥

ekaṁ vā saṁyogarūpacodanākhyāviśeṣāt || 9 ||

Or, [it is] one and the same [act], because there is no difference in connection, form, injunction, or designation.

न नाम्ना स्याद् अचोदनाभिधानत्वात् ॥ १० ॥

na nāmnā syād acodanābhidhānatvāt || 10 ||

It would not [be differentiated] by name, because a [mere] name is not itself an injunctive statement (acodanābhidhānatva).

सर्वेषां चैककर्म्यं स्यात् ॥ ११ ॥

sarveṣāṁ caikakarmyaṁ syāt || 11 ||

And there would be one-and-the-same-act-ness (aikakarmya) for all [of them, across recensions].

कृतकं चाभिधानम् ॥ १२ ॥

kṛtakaṁ cābhidhānam || 12 ||

And the [differing] designation is [merely] contrived (kṛtaka).

एकत्वेऽपि परम् ॥ १३ ॥

ekatve'pi param || 13 ||

Even where there is unity [of the act], there is [still] something further [to note].

विद्यायां धर्मशास्त्रम् ॥ १४ ॥

vidyāyāṁ dharmaśāstram || 14 ||

In [a matter of] vidyā (a knowledge-discipline), [it functions as] a prescriptive teaching (dharma-śāstra).

अग्नेयवत्पुनर्वचनम् ॥ १५ ॥

agneyavatpunarvacanam || 15 ||

This repeated statement is like [the case of] the Āgneya [offering].

अद्विर्वचनं वा श्रुतिसंयोगाविशेषात् ॥ १६ ॥

advirvacanaṁ vā śrutisaṁyogāviśeṣāt || 16 ||

Or, it is not a double statement (advirvacana), because there is no difference in [its] scriptural connection.

अर्थासन्निधेश् च ॥ १७ ॥

arthāsannidheś ca || 17 ||

And because of the non-proximity of [that] sense.

न चैकं प्रतिशिष्यते ॥ १८ ॥

na caikaṁ pratiśiṣyate || 18 ||

And no single [thing] is [thereby] specially taught.

समाप्तिवच् च संप्रेक्षा ॥ १९ ॥

samāptivac ca saṁprekṣā || 19 ||

And the [careful] consideration (samprekṣā) is like [the case of] completion.

एकत्वेऽपि पराणि निन्दाशक्तिसमाप्तिवचनानि ॥ २० ॥

ekatve'pi parāṇi nindāśaktisamāptivacanāni || 20 ||

Even where there is unity, the statements of censure, capability, and completion are further/distinct [in each case].

प्रायश्चित्तं निमित्तेन ॥ २१ ॥

prāyaścittaṁ nimittena || 21 ||

Expiation (prāyaścitta) [is determined] according to its [particular] occasioning cause (nimitta).

प्रक्रमाद् वा नियोगेन ॥ २२ ॥

prakramād vā niyogena || 22 ||

Or, on the strength of sequence (prakrama), by [distinct] application (niyoga).

समाप्तिः पूर्ववत्त्वाद्यथाज्ञाते प्रतीयेत ॥ २३ ॥

samāptiḥ pūrvavattvādyathājñāte pratīyeta || 23 ||

Completion, because of [its] being as before (pūrvavattva), is understood according to what is [already] known.

लिङ्गमविशिष्टं सर्वशेषत्वान् न हि तत्र कर्मचोदना तस्मात् द्वादशाहस्याहारव्यपदेशः स्यात् ॥ २४ ॥

liṅgamaviśiṣṭaṁ sarvaśeṣatvān na hi tatra karmacodanā tasmāt dvādaśāhasyāhāravyapadeśaḥ syāt || 24 ||

The indicative mark is undifferentiated, because [everything there] is subordinate to the whole; for there is indeed no [separate] injunction of the act there; therefore, in the case of the Dvādaśāha (twelve-day rite), there would be [merely] a designation of the daily portion (ahāra-vyapadeśa).

द्रव्ये चाचोदितत्वाद् विधीनाम् अव्यवस्था स्यान् निर्देशाद् व्यतिष्ठेत तस्मान् नित्यानुवादः स्यात् ॥ २५ ॥

dravye cācoditatvād vidhīnām avyavasthā syān nirdeśād vyatiṣṭheta tasmān nityānuvādaḥ syāt || 25 ||

And, since the substance is not [separately] enjoined, there would be an indeterminacy (avyavasthā) of the injunctions; [but] by [express] designation it would be settled; therefore it would be a mere restatement (anuvāda) of what is permanently (nitya) [already] established.

विहितप्रतिषेधात् पक्षेऽतिरेकः स्यात् ॥ २६ ॥

vihitapratiṣedhāt pakṣe'tirekaḥ syāt || 26 ||

From the prohibition of what is [otherwise] enjoined, there would be an excess (atireka) in [one] alternative (pakṣa).

सारस्वते विप्रतिषेधाद्यदेति स्यात् ॥ २७ ॥

sārasvate vipratiṣedhādyadeti syāt || 27 ||

In the Sārasvata [rite], on account of a mutual conflict (viprati­ṣedha), the rule 'yadā' (governing conditional priority) would apply.

उपहव्येऽप्रतिप्रसवः ॥ २८ ॥

upahavye'pratiprasavaḥ || 28 ||

In the Upahavya, there is no counter-permission/exception (apratiprasava).

गुणार्था वा पुनः श्रुतिः ॥ २९ ॥

guṇārthā vā punaḥ śrutiḥ || 29 ||

Or, the repeated statement serves a subsidiary purpose.

प्रत्ययं चापि दर्शयति ॥ ३० ॥

pratyayaṁ cāpi darśayati || 30 ||

And [scripture] also shows [its] ground of conviction (pratyaya).

अपि वा क्रमसंयोगाद् विधिपृथक्त्वम् एकस्यां व्यवतिष्ठेत ॥ ३१ ॥

api vā kramasaṁyogād vidhipṛthaktvam ekasyāṁ vyavatiṣṭheta || 31 ||

Or rather, by virtue of connection with sequence (krama-saṃyoga), a separateness of injunction (vidhi-pṛthaktva) might rest within a single [text].

विरोधिना त्व् असंयोगाद् ऐककर्म्ये तत्संयोगाद् विधीनां सर्वकर्मप्रत्ययः स्यात् ॥ ३२ ॥

virodhinā tv asaṁyogād aikakarmye tatsaṁyogād vidhīnāṁ sarvakarmapratyayaḥ syāt || 32 ||

But because of non-connection with what is conflicting, in the case of one-and-the-same-act (aikakarmya), by connection with that [element], the conviction (pratyaya) of the injunctions would extend to all the acts.

अथातः शेषलक्षणम् ॥ १ ॥

athātaḥ śeṣalakṣaṇam || 1 ||

Now, next, [we take up] the definition of śeṣa (a subordinate element).

शेषः परार्थत्वात् ॥ २ ॥

śeṣaḥ parārthatvāt || 2 ||

[An element] is śeṣa because it exists for the sake of another (parārthatva).

द्रव्यगुणसंस्कारेषु बादरिः ॥ ३ ॥

dravyaguṇasaṁskāreṣu bādariḥ || 3 ||

[This applies] to substance (dravya), quality (guṇa), and saṃskāra — [this is] Bādari['s view].

कर्माण्यपि जैमिनिः फलार्थत्वात् ॥ ४ ॥

karmāṇy api jaiminiḥ phalārthatvāt || 4 ||

Jaimini [holds that] acts (karma) too [are śeṣa], because they exist for the sake of the fruit (phala).

फलं च पुरुषार्थत्वात् ॥ ५ ॥

phalaṁ ca puruṣārthatvāt || 5 ||

And the fruit (phala) too [is śeṣa], because it exists for the sake of the agent (puruṣa).

पुरुषश् च कर्मार्थत्वात् ॥ ६ ॥

puruṣaś ca karmārthatvāt || 6 ||

And the agent (puruṣa) too [is śeṣa], because he exists for the sake of the act (karma).

तेषाम् अर्थेन सम्बन्धः ॥ ७ ॥

teṣām arthena sambandhaḥ || 7 ||

Their connection (sambandha) is through purpose/meaning (artha).

Note: Source prints 'सबन्धः' (dropped anusvara/म); corrected to 'सम्बन्धः' (sambandhaḥ, "connection"), the clearly intended reading, matching this word's spelling elsewhere in the adhyaya (e.g. 3.1.26, 3.1.27).

विहितस् तु सर्वधर्मः स्यात् संयोगतोऽविशेषात् प्रकरणाविशेषाच् च ॥ ८ ॥

vihitas tu sarvadharmaḥ syāt saṁyogato 'viśeṣāt prakaraṇāviśeṣāc ca || 8 ||

[Objection:] But what is enjoined would be the entire dharma [the whole ritual complex], since there is no distinction in its connection (saṁyoga) and no distinction in its context (prakaraṇa).

अर्थलोपाद् अकर्मे स्यात् ॥ ९ ॥

arthalopād akarme syāt || 9 ||

[Reply:] On account of loss of the sense (arthalopa) [that view fails, since it] would apply even where there is no act.

फलं तु सह चेष्टया शब्दार्थोऽभावाद् विप्रयोगे स्यात् ॥ १० ॥

phalaṁ tu saha ceṣṭayā śabdārtho 'bhāvād viprayoge syāt || 10 ||

But the fruit (phala), together with the effort (ceṣṭā), constitutes the sense of the word (śabdārtha); for want of [any other sense], it would [still be understood] even in disjunction (viprayoga).

द्रव्यं चोत्पत्तिसंयोगात् तद् अर्थम् एव चोद्येत ॥ ११ ॥

dravyaṁ cotpattisaṁyogāt tad artham eva codyeta || 11 ||

And dravya (substance), on account of its connection with the act's origination (utpatti), would be enjoined only for the sake of that [act].

अर्थैकत्वे द्रव्यगुणयोर् ऐककर्म्यान् नियमः स्यात् ॥ १२ ॥

arthaikatve dravyaguṇayor aikakarmyān niyamaḥ syāt || 12 ||

When the purpose is one, there would be a rule (niyama) restricting dravya and guṇa to one and the same act (aikakarmya).

एकत्वयुक्तम् एकस्य श्रुतिसंयोगात् ॥ १३ ॥

ekatvayuktam ekasya śrutisaṁyogāt || 13 ||

[This] restriction to oneness holds for a single [act], on account of its connection with a [single] scriptural statement (śruti).

सर्वेषां वा लक्षणत्वाद् अविशिष्टं हि लक्षणम् ॥ १४ ॥

sarveṣāṁ vā lakṣaṇatvād aviśiṣṭaṁ hi lakṣaṇam || 14 ||

Or [it applies] to all [the acts equally], since the defining mark (lakṣaṇa) is itself undifferentiated.

चोदितेतुपरार्थत्वाद् यथाश्रुति प्रतीयेता ॥ १५ ॥

codite tu parārthatvād yathāśruti pratīyetā || 15 ||

But when [something] is enjoined, on account of its being for another's sake (parārthatva), it should be understood exactly as stated (yathāśruti).

संस्काराद् वागुणानाम् अव्यवस्था स्यात् ॥ १६ ॥

saṁskārād vā guṇānām avyavasthā syāt || 16 ||

Or, from [being connected] through saṁskāra, there would be indeterminacy (avyavasthā) of the [subordinate] qualities.

व्यवस्थावार्थस्य श्रुतिसंयोगात् तस्य शब्द प्रमाणत्वात् ॥ १७ ॥

vyavasthā vārthasya śrutisaṁyogāt tasya śabda pramāṇatvāt || 17 ||

Or [rather, there is] a fixed determination (vyavasthā) of the sense, because of its connection with the [particular] scriptural statement, since the word (śabda) [alone] is the authority (pramāṇa) for it.

आनर्थक्यात्तदङ्गेषु ॥ १८ ॥

ānarthakyāt tadaṅgeṣu || 18 ||

[This holds] because [otherwise] there would be purposelessness (ānarthakya) among the subordinate members (aṅga) of that [act].

कर्तृगुणे तु कर्मासमवायाद् वाक्यभेदः स्यात् ॥ १९ ॥

kartṛguṇe tu karmāsamavāyād vākyabhedaḥ syāt || 19 ||

But when a quality (guṇa) belongs to the agent (kartṛ), since it does not inhere (asamavāya) in the act (karma), there would be a splitting of the sentence (vākyabheda).

साकाङ्क्षं त्व् एकवाक्यं स्याद् असमाप्तं हि पूर्वेण ॥ २० ॥

sākāṅkṣaṁ tv ekavākyaṁ syād asamāptaṁ hi pūrveṇa || 20 ||

But when [the sense] is still expectant (sākāṅkṣa), it would be a single sentence (ekavākya), since it is incomplete without the preceding [part].

सन्दिग्धे तु व्यवायाद् वाक्यभेदः स्यात् ॥ २१ ॥

sandigdhe tu vyavāyād vākyabhedaḥ syāt || 21 ||

But when [the sense] is doubtful (sandigdha), on account of the interposition (vyavāya) [between the two], there would be a splitting of the sentence.

Note: Source prints 'तुब्यवायाद्' run together with ब in place of व; corrected to 'तु व्यवायाद्' (tu vyavāyāt), restoring the word-break and the intended व.

गुणानां च परार्थत्त्वाद् असम्बन्धः समत्वात् स्यात् ॥ २२ ॥

guṇānāṁ ca parārthatvād asambandhaḥ samatvāt syāt || 22 ||

And since the [several] qualities exist for another's sake, there would be no [fixed] connection [to any one act], because of their equal [claim] (samatva).

मिथश् चानर्थसम्बन्धात् ॥ २३ ॥

mithaś cānarthasambandhāt || 23 ||

And [this follows] also because [the several acts] are mutually connected without any special mutual purpose (anarthasambandha).

Note: Source prints 'सम्वन्धात्' with व in place of ब; corrected to 'सम्बन्धात्' (sambandhāt), matching this word's spelling elsewhere in the adhyaya.

आनन्तर्यम् अचोदना ॥ २४ ॥

ānantaryam acodanā || 24 ||

[Mere] immediate sequence (ānantarya) is not an injunction (codanā) [i.e., does not by itself establish a rule].

वाक्यानां च समाप्तत्वात् ॥ २५ ॥

vākyānāṁ ca samāptatvāt || 25 ||

And because the sentences (vākya) are [each already] complete (samāpta).

Note: Source prints 'बाक्यानां' with ब in place of व; corrected to 'वाक्यानां' (vākyānām, "of sentences"), the clearly intended reading (cf. vākyabheda earlier in this pada).

शेषस् तु गुणसंयुक्तः साधारणः प्रतीयेत मिथस् तेषाम् असम्बन्धात् ॥ २६ ॥

śeṣas tu guṇasaṁyuktaḥ sādhāraṇaḥ pratīyeta mithas teṣām asambandhāt || 26 ||

But the śeṣa (subordinate element) joined with a [general] quality would be understood as common [to all the acts], because of the absence of any special mutual connection among them.

व्यवस्था वार्थसंयोगाल् लिङ्गस्यार्थेन सम्बन्धाल्लक्षणार्था गुणश्रुतिः ॥ २७ ॥

vyavasthā vārthasaṁyogāl liṅgasyārthena sambandhāl lakṣaṇārthā guṇaśrutiḥ || 27 ||

[Or rather] there is a fixed determination (vyavasthā), from connection with the [particular] sense — since a liṅga (indicatory mark) is connected with the sense it indicates — the statement about the [subordinate] quality (guṇaśruti) has a figurative purpose (lakṣaṇārthā).

अर्थाभिधानसामर्थ्यान् मन्त्रेषु शेषभावः स्यात् तस्माद् उत्पत्तिसम्बन्धोऽर्थेन नित्यसंयोगात् ॥ १ ॥

arthābhidhānasāmarthyān mantreṣu śeṣabhāvaḥ syāt tasmād utpattisambandho 'rthena nityasaṁyogāt || 1 ||

On account of [their] capacity (sāmarthya) to express the sense (artha), there is a state of being śeṣa (subordinate) among mantras; hence their connection with [the act's] origination (utpatti) is through constant conjunction (nityasaṁyoga) with the sense.

संस्कारकत्वाद् अचोदितेन स्यात् ॥ २ ॥

saṁskārakatvād acoditena syāt || 2 ||

Because [a mantra] performs the function of a saṁskāra (purificatory rite), it would apply even to what is not [separately] enjoined (acodita).

वचनात् त्व् अयथार्थम् ऐन्द्री स्यात् ॥ ३ ॥

vacanāt tv ayathārtham aindrī syāt || 3 ||

But, by explicit statement (vacana), an aindrī [Indra-related] mantra would apply [even] without literal correspondence (ayathārtha) [to its stated deity/sense].

गुणाद् वाप्य् अभिधानं स्यात् सम्बन्धस्याशास्त्रहेतुत्वात् ॥ ४ ॥

guṇād vāpy abhidhānaṁ syāt sambandhasyāśāstrahetutvāt || 4 ||

Or, its designation (abhidhāna) would be on account of a [secondary] quality (guṇa), since the connection [in that case] is not caused by scripture (aśāstrahetutva).

तथाहवानम् अपीति चेत् ॥ ५ ॥

tathāhvānam apīti cet || 5 ||

[Objection:] If it be said that the invocation (āhvāna) too is thus [similarly non-literal] —

नकालविधिश् चोदितत्वात् ॥ ६ ॥

na kālavidhiś coditatvāt || 6 ||

[Reply:] No — it is a rule of time (kālavidhi), since it is [separately] enjoined.

गुणाभावात् ॥ ७ ॥

guṇābhāvāt || 7 ||

Because of the absence of [any secondary] quality [here, unlike the earlier case].

लिङ्गाच् च ॥ ८ ॥

liṅgāc ca || 8 ||

And also from the indicatory mark (liṅga).

विधिकोपश् चोपदेशे स्यात् ॥ ९ ॥

vidhikopaś copadeśe syāt || 9 ||

And there would be a violation (kopa) of the injunction (vidhi) in the [alternative] teaching (upadeśa) [if read otherwise].

तथोत्थानविसर्जने ॥ १० ॥

tathotthānavisarjane || 10 ||

Likewise in the case of [the mantras for] rising (utthāna) and dismissal (visarjana).

सूक्तवाके च कालविधिः परार्थत्वात् ॥ ११ ॥

sūktavāke ca kālavidhiḥ parārthatvāt || 11 ||

And in the sūktavāka [a specific liturgical recitation], there is a rule of time, because it is for another's sake (parārthatva).

उपदेशो वा याज्याशब्दो हि नाकस्मात् ॥ १२ ॥

upadeśo vā yājyāśabdo hi nākasmāt || 12 ||

Or [rather it is] a teaching (upadeśa), for the word "yājyā" is not used without reason (na akasmāt).

सदेवतार्थस् तत्संयोगात् ॥ १३ ॥

sadevatārthas tatsaṁyogāt || 13 ||

[It] has the deity (devatā) as its sense together [with the act], on account of connection with that [deity].

प्रतिपत्तिर् इति चेत् स्विष्टकृद्वदुभयसंस्कारः स्यात् ॥ १४ ॥

pratipattir iti cet sviṣṭakṛdvad ubhayasaṁskāraḥ syāt || 14 ||

If it be said this is merely for recognition (pratipatti) — [no,] like the Sviṣṭakṛt [oblation], it would effect a saṁskāra of both.

कृत्स्नोपदेशाद् उभयत्र सर्ववचनम् ॥ १५ ॥

kṛtsnopadeśād ubhayatra sarvavacanam || 15 ||

Because of the complete teaching (kṛtsnopadeśa), the statement (vacana) applies wholly to both.

यथार्थं वा शेषभूतसंस्कारात् ॥ १६ ॥

yathārthaṁ vā śeṣabhūtasaṁskārāt || 16 ||

Or, according to the literal sense (yathārtha), since the saṁskāra [in question] is itself a subordinate element (śeṣabhūta).

वचनाद् इति चेत् ॥ १७ ॥

vacanād iti cet || 17 ||

If it be objected: "because of explicit statement (vacana)" —

प्रकरणाविभागाद् उभे प्रति कृत्स्नशब्दः ॥ १८ ॥

prakaraṇāvibhāgād ubhe prati kṛtsnaśabdaḥ || 18 ||

[Reply:] No — because the context (prakaraṇa) is undivided, the word "entire" (kṛtsna) applies to both.

लिङ्गक्रमसमाख्यानात् काम्ययुक्तं समामनानम् ॥ १९ ॥

liṅgakramasamākhyānāt kāmyayuktaṁ samāmnānam || 19 ||

On account of the indicatory mark, sequence (krama), and name (samākhyā), what is traditionally recited (samāmnāna) applies only to what is joined with an optional rite (kāmya).

अधिकारे च मन्त्रविधिर् अतदाख्येषु शिष्टत्वात् ॥ २० ॥

adhikāre ca mantravidhir atadākhyeṣu śiṣṭatvāt || 20 ||

And regarding [general] competence (adhikāra), the rule for the mantra [applies] even where those rites are not so named (atadākhya), since it is [already] enjoined (śiṣṭatva) elsewhere.

तदाख्यो वा प्रकरणोपपत्तिभ्याम् ॥ २१ ॥

tadākhyo vā prakaraṇopapattibhyām || 21 ||

Or, [it applies only to what] bears that name, on the strength of both the context (prakaraṇa) and logical appropriateness (upapatti).

अनर्थकश् चोपदेशः स्याद् असम्बन्धात् फलवता न ह्य् उपस्थानं फलवत् ॥ २२ ॥

anarthakaś copadeśaḥ syād asambandhāt phalavatā na hy upasthānaṁ phalavat || 22 ||

And the teaching would become purposeless (anarthaka), on account of having no connection with what has a fruit (phalavat), for mere presence (upasthāna) is not itself something that has a fruit.

सर्वेषां चोपदिष्टत्वात् ॥ २३ ॥

sarveṣāṁ copadiṣṭatvāt || 23 ||

And because all [of them] are [already] taught (upadiṣṭa).

लिङ्गसमाख्यानाभ्यां भक्षार्थतानुवाकस्य ॥ २४ ॥

liṅgasamākhyānābhyāṁ bhakṣārthatānuvākasya || 24 ||

By both the indicatory mark and the name, the [ritual] section (anuvāka) has the priestly portion (bhakṣa) as its purpose.

तस्य रूपोपदेशाभ्याम् अपकर्षोऽर्थस्य चोदितत्वात् ॥ २५ ॥

tasya rūpopadeśābhyām apakarṣo 'rthasya coditatvāt || 25 ||

Its derivation (apakarṣa) [is drawn elsewhere] by both form (rūpa) and teaching (upadeśa), since its sense is [there] enjoined.

गुणाभिधानान् मन्द्रादिर् एकमन्त्रः स्यात् तयोर् एकार्थसंयोगात् ॥ २६ ॥

guṇābhidhānān mandrādir ekamantraḥ syāt tayor ekārthasaṁyogāt || 26 ||

From the statement of the [common] quality, "mandra" and the rest would be regarded as parts of a single mantra, since the two are connected in a single sense.

लिङ्गविशेषनिर्देशात् समानविधानेष्व् अनैन्द्राणाम् अमन्त्रत्वम् ॥ २७ ॥

liṅgaviśeṣanirdeśāt samānavidhāneṣv anaindrāṇām amantratvam || 27 ||

On account of the mention of a specific indicatory mark, among rites having identical injunctions (samānavidhāna), [verses] not related to Indra (anaindra) would not have the status of [that] mantra.

यथादेवतं वा तत्प्रकृतित्वं हि दर्शयति ॥ २८ ॥

yathādevataṁ vā tatprakṛtitvaṁ hi darśayati || 28 ||

Or, according to the deity addressed (yathādevata), since it shows that it is the prakṛti (archetype) of that.

पुनरभ्युन्नीतेषु सर्वेषाम् उपलक्षणं द्विशेषत्वात् ॥ २९ ॥

punarabhyunnīteṣu sarveṣām upalakṣaṇaṁ dviśeṣatvāt || 29 ||

Among rites taken up again (punarabhyunnīta), there is an indicatory reference (upalakṣaṇa) to all of them, since there are two subordinate elements (dviśeṣatva).

अनयाद् वा पूर्वस्यानुपलक्षणम् ॥ ३० ॥

anayād vā pūrvasyānupalakṣaṇam || 30 ||

Or, from [the word] "anayā" ["by this"], there is no indicatory reference to the preceding [rite].

ग्रहणाद् वापनयः स्यात् ॥ ३१ ॥

grahaṇād vāpanayaḥ syāt || 31 ||

Or, from explicit mention (grahaṇa), there would be a removal/withdrawal (apanaya).

पात्नीवते तु पूर्ववत् ॥ ३२ ॥

pātnīvate tu pūrvavat || 32 ||

But in the case of the Pātnīvata [rite], [it is] as before (pūrvavat).

ग्रहणाद् वापनीतं स्यात् ॥ ३३ ॥

grahaṇād vāpanītaṁ syāt || 33 ||

Or, from mention, it would be regarded as already removed.

त्वष्टारं तूपलक्षयेत् पानात् ॥ ३४ ॥

tvaṣṭāraṁ tūpalakṣayet pānāt || 34 ||

But it would indicate (upalakṣayet) Tvaṣṭṛ, on account of the drinking (pāna).

अतुल्यत्वात् तु नैवं स्यात् ॥ ३५ ॥

atulyatvāt tu naivaṁ syāt || 35 ||

But, on account of dissimilarity (atulyatva), it would not be so.

त्रिंशच् च परार्थत्वात् ॥ ३६ ॥

triṁśac ca parārthatvāt || 36 ||

And the thirty [verses/portion likewise], since it is for another's sake.

वषट्कारश् च कर्तृवत् ॥ ३७ ॥

vaṣaṭkāraś ca kartṛvat || 37 ||

And the vaṣaṭkāra [ritual exclamation] is like [that of] the agent (kartṛ).

छन्दः प्रतिषेधस् तु सर्वगामित्वात् ॥ ३८ ॥

chandaḥ pratiṣedhas tu sarvagāmitvāt || 38 ||

But the prohibition (pratiṣedha) regarding meter (chandas) [holds], since it extends to all (sarvagāmitva).

ऐन्द्राग्ने तु लिङ्गभावात् स्यात् ॥ ३९ ॥

aindrāgne tu liṅgabhāvāt syāt || 39 ||

But in the [rite] connected with Indra-Agni, it would be on account of the presence of the indicatory mark (liṅgabhāva).

Note: Source prints 'लिङ्गभाबात्' with ब in place of व; corrected to 'लिङ्गभावात्' (liṅgabhāvāt, "from the presence of the indicatory mark").

एकस्मिन् वा देवतान्तराद् विभागवत् ॥ ४० ॥

ekasmin vā devatāntarād vibhāgavat || 40 ||

Or, in a single [mantra/rite], on account of a different deity (devatāntara), [it would be treated] as having a division (vibhāgavat).

छन्दश् च देवतावत् ॥ ४१ ॥

chandaś ca devatāvat || 41 ||

And meter (chandas) too is treated like the deity (devatāvat) [in this respect].

सर्वेषु वाभावाद् एकच्छन्दसः ॥ ४२ ॥

sarveṣu vābhāvād ekacchandasaḥ || 42 ||

Or, [it extends] to all, on account of the absence [of distinction elsewhere], for it is a case of a single meter (ekacchandas).

सर्वेषां वैकमन्त्र्यम् ऐतिशायनस्य भक्तिपानत्वात् सवनाधिकारो हि ॥ ४३ ॥

sarveṣāṁ vaikamantryam aitiśāyanasya bhaktipānatvāt savanādhikāro hi || 43 ||

Or, there is a single-mantra status (ekamantrya) for all — [this is] Aitiśāyana's [view], since it is a matter of the devotional draught (bhaktipāna), for the [scope of] authority (adhikāra) is that of the [soma-]pressing (savana).

श्रुतेर् जाताधिकारः स्यात् ॥ १ ॥

śruter jātādhikāraḥ syāt || 1 ||

From śruti (direct scriptural statement), the [ritual] competence (adhikāra) would arise for one already born (jāta) [i.e., an already-existing person].

वेदो वा प्रायदर्शनात् ॥ २ ॥

vedo vā prāyadarśanāt || 2 ||

Or, [it is] through [Vedic study, i.e.] the Veda, since that is generally observed (prāyadarśana).

लिङ्गाच् च ॥ ३ ॥

liṅgāc ca || 3 ||

And also from the indicatory mark (liṅga).

धर्मोपदेशाच् च न हि द्रव्येण सम्बन्धः ॥ ४ ॥

dharmopadeśāc ca na hi dravyeṇa sambandhaḥ || 4 ||

And [also] from the teaching of dharma (dharmopadeśa) — for there is indeed no connection through mere substance (dravya).

त्रयीविद्याख्या च तद्विद् धि ॥ ५ ॥

trayīvidyākhyā ca tadvid dhi || 5 ||

And [there is] the designation "knower of the threefold [Vedic] learning" (trayīvidyā), for such a one indeed knows that.

व्यक्तिक्रमे यथाश्रुतीति चेत् ॥ ६ ॥

vyaktikrame yathāśrutīti cet || 6 ||

If it be said that in the sequence of individual [applications] (vyaktikrama), [it should be] according to what is literally heard (yathāśruti) —

न सर्वस्मिन् निवेशात् ॥ ७ ॥

na sarvasmin niveśāt || 7 ||

[Reply:] No — because of its being situated (niveśa) in all [cases] alike.

वेदसंयोगान् न प्रकरणेन बाध्यते ॥ ८ ॥

vedasaṁyogān na prakaraṇena bādhyate || 8 ||

On account of connection with the Veda, it is not overridden (bādhyate) by the context (prakaraṇa).

गुणमुख्यव्यतिक्रमे तदर्थत्वान् मुख्येन वेदसंयोगः ॥ ९ ॥

guṇamukhyavyatikrame tadarthatvān mukhyena vedasaṁyogaḥ || 9 ||

When there is a conflict (vyatikrama) between the secondary (guṇa) and primary (mukhya) sense, since the secondary exists for the sake of the primary, the connection with the Veda is through the primary sense.

भूयस्त्वेनोभयश्रुति ॥ १० ॥

bhūyastvenobhayaśruti || 10 ||

By reason of preponderance (bhūyastva), there is a statement (śruti) covering both.

असंयुक्तं प्रकरणाद् इति कर्तव्यतार्थित्वात् ॥ ११ ॥

asaṁyuktaṁ prakaraṇād iti kartavyatārthitvāt || 11 ||

[Something] unconnected [directly with the Veda would be understood] from the context, because the context requires something to be done (kartavyatārthitva).

क्रमश् च देशसामान्यात् ॥ १२ ॥

kramaś ca deśasāmānyāt || 12 ||

And [likewise] sequence (krama) [is determined] from the general similarity of place (deśasāmānya).

आख्या चैवम तदर्थत्वात् ॥ १३ ॥

ākhyā caivaṁ tadarthatvāt || 13 ||

And the [conventional] name (ākhyā) too, in the same way, since it exists for that purpose.

श्रुति-लिङ्ग-वाक्य-प्रकरण-स्थान-समाख्यानां समवाये पारदौर्बल्यम् अर्थविप्रकर्षात् ॥ १४ ॥

śruti-liṅga-vākya-prakaraṇa-sthāna-samākhyānāṁ samavāye pāradaurbalyam arthaviprakarṣāt || 14 ||

When śruti, liṅga, vākya, prakaraṇa, sthāna, and samākhyā occur together [in conflict], there is successive weakening (pāradaurbalya) [of authority, in that order], on account of increasing remoteness of sense (arthaviprakarṣa).

अहीनो वा प्रकरणाद् गौणः ॥ १५ ॥

ahīno vā prakaraṇād gauṇaḥ || 15 ||

Or, what derives from the context is not deficient (ahīna), though it is figurative (gauṇa).

असंयोगात् तु मुख्यस्य तस्माद् अपकृष्येत ॥ १६ ॥

asaṁyogāt tu mukhyasya tasmād apakṛṣyeta || 16 ||

But, on account of its non-connection with the primary [sense], it would be drawn away (apakṛṣyeta) from that.

द्वित्वबहुत्वयुक्तं वा चोदनात् तस्य ॥ १७ ॥

dvitvabahutvayuktaṁ vā codanāt tasya || 17 ||

Or, [it is] connected with duality (dvitva) or plurality (bahutva), on account of its own injunction (codanā).

पक्षेणार्थकृतस्येति चेत् ॥ १८ ॥

pakṣeṇārthakṛtasyeti cet || 18 ||

If it be said this is on the side of what is accomplished by sense (arthakṛta) —

नकृतेर् एकसंयोगात् ॥ १९ ॥

na kṛter ekasaṁyogāt || 19 ||

[Reply:] No — because the act (kṛti) has [only] a single connection (ekasaṁyoga).

जाघनी चैकदेशत्वात् ॥ २० ॥

jāghanī caikadeśatvāt || 20 ||

And the jāghanī [rite/portion, likewise], since it is [only] a partial element (ekadeśatva).

चोदना वापूर्वत्वात् ॥ २१ ॥

codanā vāpūrvatvāt || 21 ||

Or, [it is] by injunction (codanā), on account of [its] apūrva-ness [being a fresh potency otherwise unknown].

एकदेश इति चेत् ॥ २२ ॥

ekadeśa iti cet || 22 ||

If it be said it is a partial element (ekadeśa) —

न प्रकृतेर् अशास्त्रनिष्पत्तेः ॥ २३ ॥

na prakṛter aśāstraniṣpatteḥ || 23 ||

[Reply:] No — [not a part] of the prakṛti (archetype rite), since its accomplishment is not through scripture (aśāstraniṣpatti).

सन्तर्दनं प्रकृतौ क्रयणवदनर्थलोपात् स्यात् ॥ २४ ॥

santardanaṁ prakṛtau krayaṇavad anarthalopāt syāt || 24 ||

The santardana [rite] would belong to the prakṛti, like the [rite of] purchase (krayaṇa), since otherwise there would be a needless loss of meaning (anarthalopa).

उत्कर्षो वा ग्रहणाद् विशेषस्य ॥ २५ ॥

utkarṣo vā grahaṇād viśeṣasya || 25 ||

Or, there is an extension/elevation (utkarṣa) of the particular element (viśeṣa), through its explicit mention (grahaṇa).

कर्तृतो वा विशेषस्य तन्निमित्तत्वात् ॥ २६ ॥

kartṛto vā viśeṣasya tannimittatvāt || 26 ||

Or, [the extension is] from the agent (kartṛ) of the particular rite, since that is its occasioning cause (nimitta).

क्रतुतो वार्थवादान् उपपत्तेः स्यात् ॥ २७ ॥

kratuto vārthavādān upapatteḥ syāt || 27 ||

Or, [it would be understood] from the [main] rite (kratu), on the strength of an arthavāda [explanatory passage], through its appropriateness (upapatti).

संस्थाश् च कर्तृवद् धारणार्थाविशेषात् ॥ २८ ॥

saṁsthāś ca kartṛvad dhāraṇārthāviśeṣāt || 28 ||

And the [various ritual] saṁsthās (concluding forms) are treated like the agent (kartṛvat), since there is no difference in the purpose of maintaining/performing (dhāraṇārtha) them.

उक्थ्यादिषु वार्थस्य विद्यमानत्वात् ॥ २९ ॥

ukthyādiṣu vārthasya vidyamānatvāt || 29 ||

Or, in the Ukthya and other [rites], since the sense is [already] present (vidyamāna).

अविशेषात् स्तुतिर् व्यर्थेति चेत् ॥ ३० ॥

aviśeṣāt stutir vyartheti cet || 30 ||

If it be objected that, since there is no difference, the [eulogistic] praise (stuti) would be meaningless (vyartha) —

स्याद् अनित्यत्वात् ॥ ३१ ॥

syād anityatvāt || 31 ||

[Reply:] It would [still have a purpose], since it is not invariable (anityatva).

सङ्ख्यायुक्तं क्रतोः प्रकरणात् स्यात् ॥ ३२ ॥

saṅkhyāyuktaṁ kratoḥ prakaraṇāt syāt || 32 ||

What is connected with a [specific] number (saṅkhyā) would be determined from the context of the [main] rite (kratu).

नैमित्तिकं वा कर्तृसंयोगाल् लिङ्गस्य तन्निमित्तत्वात् ॥ ३३ ॥

naimittikaṁ vā kartṛsaṁyogāl liṅgasya tannimittatvāt || 33 ||

Or, [it is] occasional (naimittika), through connection with the agent, since the indicatory mark (liṅga) is itself the cause of that.

पौष्णं पैषणं विकृतौ प्रतीयेताचोदनात् प्रकृतौ ॥ ३४ ॥

pauṣṇaṁ paiṣaṇaṁ vikṛtau pratīyetācodanāt prakṛtau || 34 ||

The Pauṣṇa grinding (paiṣaṇa) would be understood [as belonging] to the vikṛti (derivative rite), since it is not [separately] enjoined in the prakṛti (archetype).

तत्सर्वार्थम् अविशेषात् ॥ ३५ ॥

tatsarvārtham aviśeṣāt || 35 ||

That [rule] applies to all [similar cases], since there is no difference.

चरौवार्थोक्तं पुरोडाशेऽर्थविप्रतिषेधात् पशौ न स्यात् ॥ ३६ ॥

carau vārthoktaṁ puroḍāśe 'rthavipratiṣedhāt paśau na syāt || 36 ||

What is stated with a [given] sense (arthokta) regarding the caru (rice-porridge oblation) — or [regarding] the puroḍāśa (rice-cake) — would not, on account of a conflict of sense (arthavipratiṣedha), apply to the paśu (animal sacrifice).

चराव् अपीति चेत् ॥ ३७ ॥

carāv apīti cet || 37 ||

If it be said [it applies] to the caru too —

न पक्तिनामत्वात् ॥ ३८ ॥

na paktināmatvāt || 38 ||

[Reply:] No — because [that word] is [merely] the name of a [process of] cooking (pakti).

एकस्मिन्न् एकसंयोगात् ॥ ३९ ॥

ekasminn ekasaṁyogāt || 39 ||

In a single [case], on account of a single connection.

धर्माविप्रतिषेधाच् च ॥ ४० ॥

dharmāvipratiṣedhāc ca || 40 ||

And because there is no conflict of dharma (dharmāvipratiṣedha).

अपि वा सद्वितीये स्याद् देवतानिमित्तत्वात ॥ ४१ ॥

api vā sadvitīye syād devatānimittatvāt || 41 ||

Or, it would apply even in the second [case] together [with the first], since the deity (devatā) is its occasioning cause.

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च ॥ ४२ ॥

liṅgadarśanāc ca || 42 ||

And also from the observation of the indicatory mark (liṅga).

वचनात् सर्वपेषणं तं प्रति शास्त्रवत्वाद् अर्थाभावाद् विचराव् अपेषणं भवति ॥ ४३ ॥

vacanāt sarvapeṣaṇaṁ taṁ prati śāstravatvād arthābhāvād vicarāv apeṣaṇaṁ bhavati || 43 ||

By explicit statement, the grinding of everything (sarvapeṣaṇa) applies with respect to that, since it has scriptural authority (śāstravatva); but, for want of any [further] purpose (arthābhāva), as regards the caru there is no grinding (apeṣaṇa).

एकस्मिन् वार्थधर्मत्वाद् ऐन्द्राग्नव् अदुभयोर् न स्याद् अचोदितत्वात् ॥ ४४ ॥

ekasmin vārthadharmatvād aindrāgnav adubhayor na syād acoditatvāt || 44 ||

Or, in the case of a single [deity/rite], since it is a property of the sense (arthadharmatva), in [the combined offering of] Indra-Agni it would not apply to both, since [the second] is not [separately] enjoined.

हेतुमात्रम् अदन्तत्वम् ॥ ४५ ॥

hetumātram adantatvam || 45 ||

[Its] having an a-ending (adantatva) is merely an incidental ground (hetumātra) [not a determining one].

वचनं परम् ॥ ४६ ॥

vacanaṁ param || 46 ||

The explicit statement (vacana) is the supreme [authority].

निवीताम् इति मनुष्यधर्मः शब्दस्य तत्प्रधानत्वात् ॥ १ ॥

nivītām iti manuṣyadharmaḥ śabdasya tatpradhānatvāt || 1 ||

The [rule about wearing the sacred thread as] nivīta is a matter of ordinary human custom (laukika), since in that [context] the [ordinary] sense of the word is what is primary.

अपदेशो वार्थस्य विद्यमानतत्त्वात् ॥ २ ॥

apadeśo vārthasya vidyamānatattvāt || 2 ||

Or [the Vedic mention] is merely a designation (apadeśa) of the object, since its reality already exists [independently of any injunction].

विधिस् त्व् अपूर्वत्वात् स्यात् ॥ ३ ॥

vidhis tv apūrvatvāt syāt || 3 ||

[Objection:] But it would be an injunction (vidhi), because it states something not otherwise known (apūrva).

Note: Source prints 'विधिस्तवर्पूर्वत्वात्', an evident transcription corruption of the sandhi form 'विधिस्त्वपूर्वत्वात्' (vidhiḥ tu apūrvatvāt, "but it would be an injunction, since it states something not otherwise known"); corrected accordingly.

स प्रायात् कर्मधर्मः स्यात् ॥ ४ ॥

sa prāyāt karmadharmaḥ syāt || 4 ||

That, on the whole, would be a rule pertaining to the [Vedic] rite (karmadharma).

वाक्यशेषत्वात् ॥ ५ ॥

vākyaśeṣatvāt || 5 ||

Because it is a remainder/continuation of the [same] sentence (vākyaśeṣa).

तत्प्रकरणे यत् तत् संयुक्तम् अविप्रतिषेधात् ॥ ६ ॥

tatprakaraṇe yat tat saṁyuktam avipratiṣedhāt || 6 ||

Whatever occurs within that context (prakaraṇa) is connected with it, there being no contradiction [to prevent the connection].

तत्प्रधाने वा तुल्यवत् प्रसंख्यानाद् इतरस्य तदर्थत्वात् ॥ ७ ॥

tatpradhāne vā tulyavat prasaṁkhyānād itarasya tadarthatvāt || 7 ||

Or it belongs to that principal act (pradhāna) equally, since [its] enumeration [in the text] shows that the other exists for its sake.

अर्थवादो वा प्रकरणात् ॥ ८ ॥

arthavādo vā prakaraṇāt || 8 ||

Or, on account of the context (prakaraṇa), [it is] an arthavāda (explanatory/eulogistic statement).

विधिना चैकवाक्यत्वात् ॥ ९ ॥

vidhinā caikavākyatvāt || 9 ||

And [it forms] one sentence (ekavākyatā) together with the injunction (vidhi).

दिग्विभागश् च तद्वत् सम्बन्धस्यार्थहेतुत्वात् ॥ १० ॥

digvibhāgaś ca tadvat sambandhasyārthahetutvāt || 10 ||

And the division of direction (digvibhāga) is likewise [explained], since the connection [between statement and act] has [the act's] purpose as its ground.

परुषि दितपूर्णघृतविदग्धं च तद्वत् ॥ ११ ॥

paruṣi ditapūrṇaghṛtavidagdhaṁ ca tadvat || 11 ||

And likewise in the case of paruṣ [a ritual item], whether the ghee is poured full, or scorched — the same rule applies.

अकर्म क्रतुसंयुक्तं संयोगान् नित्यानुवादः स्यात् ॥ १२ ॥

akarma kratusaṁyuktaṁ saṁyogān nityānuvādaḥ syāt || 12 ||

Something not itself an act, but connected with the [main] rite (kratu), would be, by virtue of that connection, a constant restatement (nityānuvāda) rather than a new injunction.

विधिर् वा संयोगान्तरात् ॥ १३ ॥

vidhir vā saṁyogāntarāt || 13 ||

Or it is an injunction (vidhi), because of a different connection (saṁyogāntara).

अहीनवत् पुरुषस् तदर्थत्वात् ॥ १४ ॥

ahīnavat puruṣas tadarthatvāt || 14 ||

The agent (puruṣa) is regarded like one whose [act] is not lost (ahīna), since [the act] exists for his sake.

प्रकरणविशेषाद् वा तद्युक्तस्य संस्कारो द्रव्यवत् ॥ १५ ॥

prakaraṇaviśeṣād vā tadyuktasya saṁskāro dravyavat || 15 ||

Or, owing to a particular context (prakaraṇaviśeṣa), the preparatory rite (saṁskāra) of what is connected with it functions like [that performed] on a substance (dravya).

व्यपदेशाद् अपकृष्येत ॥ १६ ॥

vyapadeśād apakṛṣyeta || 16 ||

It would be excluded/withdrawn on account of its [separate] designation (vyapadeśa).

शंयौ च सर्वपरिदानात् ॥ १७ ॥

śaṁyau ca sarvaparidānāt || 17 ||

And in the case of the śaṁyu [rite], because of the giving-over of the whole (sarvaparidāna).

प्रागपरोधान् मलवद् वाससः ॥ १८ ॥

prāgaparodhān malavad vāsasaḥ || 18 ||

Before it is obstructed [by a subsequent act] — like a soiled garment (vāsas).

अन्नप्रतिषेधाच् च ॥ १९ ॥

annapratiṣedhāc ca || 19 ||

And because of the prohibition regarding food (anna).

अप्रकरणे तु तद्वर्मस् ततो विशेषात् ॥ २० ॥

aprakaraṇe tu tadvarmas tato viśeṣāt || 20 ||

But when out of context (aprakaraṇa), that [rule applies] on account of a distinction from it.

अद्रव्यत्वात् तु शेषः स्यात् ॥ २१ ॥

adravyatvāt tu śeṣaḥ syāt || 21 ||

But because it is not a substance (adravya), it would be a subordinate (śeṣa).

वेदसंयोगात् ॥ २२ ॥

vedasaṁyogāt || 22 ||

Because of connection with the Veda.

द्रव्यसंयोगाच् च ॥ २३ ॥

dravyasaṁyogāc ca || 23 ||

And because of connection with the substance (dravya).

स्याद् वास्य संयोगवत् फलेन सम्बन्धस् तस्मात् कर्मैतिशायनः ॥ २४ ॥

syād vāsya saṁyogavat phalena sambandhas tasmāt karmaitiśāyanaḥ || 24 ||

Or its connection would be, like [any other] connection, through the fruit (phala); therefore it is the more excellent [element] with respect to the act (karma).

शेषाः प्रकरणेऽविशेषात् सर्वकर्मणाम् ॥ २५ ॥

śeṣāḥ prakaraṇe'viśeṣāt sarvakarmaṇām || 25 ||

[These] are subordinates (śeṣa) within the context (prakaraṇa), there being no distinction among all the [various] acts.

होमास् तु व्यवतिष्ठेर् अन्नाहवनीयसंयोगात् ॥ २६ ॥

homās tu vyavatiṣṭher annāhavanīyasaṁyogāt || 26 ||

But the oblations (homa) are variously apportioned, owing to the connection of the food-offering with the āhavanīya fire.

शेषश् च समाख्यानात् ॥ २७ ॥

śeṣaś ca samākhyānāt || 27 ||

And it is a subordinate (śeṣa), on account of its [distinct] name (samākhyā).

दोषात् त्व् इष्टिर् लौकिके स्याच् छास्त्राद् धि वैदिक न दोषः स्यात् ॥ २८ ॥

doṣāt tv iṣṭir laukike syāc chāstrād dhi vaidika na doṣaḥ syāt || 28 ||

But because of the fault involved, the [analogous] offering (iṣṭi) would be judged as worldly (laukika); for, being governed by scripture (śāstra), the Vedic [act] incurs no fault.

अर्थवादो वानुपपातत् तस्माद् यज्ञे प्रतीयेत ॥ २९ ॥

arthavādo vānupapātat tasmād yajñe pratīyeta || 29 ||

Or it is an arthavāda, because of the impossibility [otherwise] (anupapatti); therefore it should be understood with reference to the sacrifice (yajña).

अचोदित च कर्मभेदात् ॥ ३० ॥

acodita ca karmabhedāt || 30 ||

And it is uncommanded (acodita), on account of the difference of act (karmabheda).

लिङ्गाद् आर्त्विजे स्यात् ॥ ३१ ॥

liṅgād ārtvije syāt || 31 ||

On the basis of an indicatory mark (liṅga), it would pertain to the officiating priest (ārtvija).

पानव्यापच् च तद्वत् ॥ ३२ ॥

pānavyāpac ca tadvat || 32 ||

And likewise in the case of a failure of drinking (pānavyāpad).

दोषात् तु वैदिके स्याद् अर्थाद् धि लौकिके न दोषः स्यात् ॥ ३३ ॥

doṣāt tu vaidike syād arthād dhi laukike na doṣaḥ syāt || 33 ||

But because of the fault, it would apply in the Vedic [context]; for, judged by [its] purpose, in the worldly [context] there is no fault.

तत्सर्वत्राविशेषात् ॥ ३४ ॥

tatsarvatrāviśeṣāt || 34 ||

Because there is no distinction in that [respect] everywhere.

स्वामिनो वा तदर्थत्वात् ॥ ३५ ॥

svāmino vā tadarthatvāt || 35 ||

Or it belongs to the owner/patron (svāmin), since it exists for his sake.

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च ॥ ३६ ॥

liṅgadarśanāc ca || 36 ||

And because of the observed indicatory mark (liṅga).

सर्वप्रदानं हविषस् तदर्थत्वात् ॥ ३७ ॥

sarvapradānaṁ haviṣas tadarthatvāt || 37 ||

The complete offering-up (sarvapradāna) of the oblation (havis) [is required], since it exists for that purpose.

निरवदानात् तु शेषः स्यात् ॥ ३८ ॥

niravadānāt tu śeṣaḥ syāt || 38 ||

But because there is no [separate] cut-off portion (niravadāna), it would be a subordinate (śeṣa).

उपायो वा तदर्थत्वात् ॥ ३९ ॥

upāyo vā tadarthatvāt || 39 ||

Or it is a means (upāya), since it exists for that purpose.

कृतत्वात् तु कर्मणः सकृत् स्याद् द्रव्यस्य गुणभूतत्वात् ॥ ४० ॥

kṛtatvāt tu karmaṇaḥ sakṛt syād dravyasya guṇabhūtatvāt || 40 ||

But because the act (karma) is [already] accomplished, it would occur only once (sakṛt), the substance (dravya) being subordinate to it (guṇabhūta).

शेषदर्शनाच् च ॥ ४१ ॥

śeṣadarśanāc ca || 41 ||

And because of the observed subordination (śeṣadarśana).

अप्रयोजकत्वाद् एकस्मात् क्रियेरञ् छेषस्य गुणभूतत्वात् ॥ ४२ ॥

aprayojakatvād ekasmāt kriyeraṁ cheṣasya guṇabhūtatvāt || 42 ||

Because a single [cause] is not decisive (aprayojaka), they would be performed from a single [source], the subordinate (śeṣa) being [merely] an attribute (guṇabhūta).

संस्कृतत्वाच् च ॥ ४३ ॥

saṁskṛtatvāc ca || 43 ||

And because of being [ritually] prepared (saṁskṛta).

सर्वेभ्यो वा कारणाविशेषात् संस्कारस्य तदर्थत्वात् ॥ ४४ ॥

sarvebhyo vā kāraṇāviśeṣāt saṁskārasya tadarthatvāt || 44 ||

Or, for all [of them], since there is no distinction as to the cause (kāraṇa), the preparatory rite (saṁskāra) exists for that purpose.

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च ॥ ४५ ॥

liṅgadarśanāc ca || 45 ||

And because of the observed indicatory mark (liṅga).

एकस्माच् चेद् यथाकाम्यम् अविशेषात् ॥ ४६ ॥

ekasmāc ced yathākāmyam aviśeṣāt || 46 ||

If from a single [source], then [it may be applied] as desired (yathākāmya), there being no distinction.

मुख्याद् वा पूर्वकालत्वात् ॥ ४७ ॥

mukhyād vā pūrvakālatvāt || 47 ||

Or, [it takes its sense] from the primary (mukhya) [meaning], because of its priority in time (pūrvakālatva).

भक्षाश्रवणाद् दानशब्दः परिक्रये ॥ ४८ ॥

bhakṣāśravaṇād dānaśabdaḥ parikraye || 48 ||

Since [any statement of a priest's] portion (bhakṣa) is not heard [in the text], the word 'giving' (dāna) [refers instead] to a [ritual] exchange (parikraya).

तत्संस्तवाच् च ॥ ४९ ॥

tatsaṁstavāc ca || 49 ||

And because of its being praised together with that (tatsaṁstava).

भक्षार्थो वा द्रव्ये समत्वात् ॥ ५० ॥

bhakṣārtho vā dravye samatvāt || 50 ||

Or, the purpose is the [priest's] portion (bhakṣa), since [all priests] are equal with respect to the substance (dravya).

व्यादेशाद् दानसंस्तुतिः ॥ ५१ ॥

vyādeśād dānasaṁstutiḥ || 51 ||

From the specific designation (vyādeśa), comes the eulogy of the giving (dānasaṁstuti).

आज्याच् च सर्वसंयोगात् ॥ १ ॥

ājyāc ca sarvasaṁyogāt || 1 ||

And [it applies] to the ghee-offering (ājya) too, because of connection with the whole (sarvasaṁyoga).

कारणाच् च ॥ २ ॥

kāraṇāc ca || 2 ||

And because of the cause (kāraṇa).

एकस्मिन्त् समवत्तशब्दात् ॥ ३ ॥

ekasmint samavattaśabdāt || 3 ||

In the case of a single [portion], because of the word denoting an equally-cut-off share (samavatta).

आज्ये च दर्शनात्स्विष्टकृदर्थवदस्य ॥ ४ ॥

ājye ca darśanāt sviṣṭakṛdarthavadasya || 4 ||

And in the case of the ghee-offering, because it is [so] seen [stated in the text], the sviṣṭakṛt [concluding oblation] is meaningful (arthavat) for it.

अशेषत्वात् तु नैवं स्यात् सर्वादानाद् अशेषता ॥ ५ ॥

aśeṣatvāt tu naivaṁ syāt sarvādānād aśeṣatā || 5 ||

But because it is not a subordinate remainder (aśeṣa), it would not be so; that non-remainder status (aśeṣatā) follows from the taking of the whole (sarvādāna).

साधारण्यान् न ध्रुवायां स्यात् ॥ ६ ॥

sādhāraṇyān na dhruvāyāṁ syāt || 6 ||

Because of commonality (sādhāraṇya), it would not apply in the case of the fixed [oblation] (dhruvā).

अवत्तत्वाच् च जुह्वां तस्य च होमसंयोगात् ॥ ७ ॥

avattatvāc ca juhvāṁ tasya ca homasaṁyogāt || 7 ||

And because of not being cut off (avatta) in the case of the juhū [ladle], and because of its connection with the oblation (homa).

चमसवद् इति चेत् ॥ ८ ॥

camasavad iti cet || 8 ||

[Objection:] If it be argued that it is like the camasa [cup] —

न चोदनाविरोधाद् धविः प्रकल्पनात्वाच् च ॥ ९ ॥

na codanāvirodhād dhaviḥ prakalpanātvāc ca || 9 ||

[Reply:] No — because that would contradict the injunction (codanā), and because the oblation (havis) is [already] determined (prakalpana).

उत्पन्नाधिकारात् सति सर्ववचनम् ॥ १० ॥

utpannādhikārāt sati sarvavacanam || 10 ||

Since the entitlement (adhikāra) has [already] arisen, when it exists, there is a statement covering all (sarvavacana).

जातिविशेषात् परम् ॥ ११ ॥

jātiviśeṣāt param || 11 ||

Beyond that, on account of the specific class (jātiviśeṣa).

अन्त्यम् अरेकार्थे ॥ १२ ॥

antyam arekārthe || 12 ||

The final [element applies] in the sense of 'remaining/other' (areka).

साकम्प्रस्थाय्ये स्विष्टकृद् इडं च तद्वत् ॥ १३ ॥

sākamprasthāyye sviṣṭakṛd iḍaṁ ca tadvat || 13 ||

In the sākamprasthāyya [offerings], the sviṣṭakṛt and the iḍā [oblations follow] likewise.

सौत्रामण्यां च ग्रहेषु ॥ १४ ॥

sautrāmaṇyāṁ ca graheṣu || 14 ||

And in the sautrāmaṇī [rite], with respect to the [soma-]cups (graha).

तद्वच् च शेषवचनम् ॥ १५ ॥

tadvac ca śeṣavacanam || 15 ||

And likewise, the statement regarding the subordinate (śeṣavacana) [applies].

द्रव्यैकत्वे कर्मभेदात् प्रतिकर्म क्रियेरन् ॥ १६ ॥

dravyaikatve karmabhedāt pratikarma kriyeran || 16 ||

When the substance (dravya) is one, because the acts (karma) differ, they would be performed act by act (pratikarma).

अविभागाच् च शेषस्य सर्वान् प्रत्यविशिष्ठत्वात् ॥ १७ ॥

avibhāgāc ca śeṣasya sarvān pratyaviśiṣṭhatvāt || 17 ||

And because of non-division (avibhāga), the subordinate (śeṣa) is undifferentiated (aviśiṣṭa) with respect to all [the acts].

ऐन्द्रवायवे तु वचनात् प्रतिकर्म भक्षः स्यात् ॥ १८ ॥

aindravāyave tu vacanāt pratikarma bhakṣaḥ syāt || 18 ||

But in the aindravāyava [cup], because of an [explicit] statement (vacana), the priestly portion (bhakṣa) would be [taken] act by act (pratikarma).

सोमेऽवचनाद् भक्षो न विद्यते ॥ १९ ॥

some'vacanād bhakṣo na vidyate || 19 ||

In the case of soma, because there is no [such] statement, a [separate] portion (bhakṣa) is not established.

स्याद् वान्यार्थदर्शनात् ॥ २० ॥

syād vānyārthadarśanāt || 20 ||

Or it would exist, because of the observation of another purpose (anyārthadarśana).

वचनानि त्व् अपूर्वत्वात् तस्माद् यथोपदेशं स्युः ॥ २१ ॥

vacanāni tv apūrvatvāt tasmād yathopadeśaṁ syuḥ || 21 ||

But the [various] statements (vacana), because they convey non-repeated [information] (apūrva), would therefore apply exactly as instructed (yathopadeśa).

चमसेषु समाख्यानात् संयोगस्य तन्निमित्तत्त्वात् ॥ २२ ॥

camaseṣu samākhyānāt saṁyogasya tannimittattvāt || 22 ||

In the case of the camasa [cups], because of their [being given] names (samākhyāna), the connection (saṁyoga) has that [name] as its ground (nimitta).

उद्गातृचमसमेकः श्रुतिसंयोगात् ॥ २३ ॥

udgātṛcamasam ekaḥ śrutisaṁyogāt || 23 ||

One [priest partakes of] the udgātṛ's camasa, because of a direct scriptural connection (śrutisaṁyoga).

सर्वे वा सर्वसंयोगात् ॥ २४ ॥

sarve vā sarvasaṁyogāt || 24 ||

Or all [of them partake], because of connection with the whole (sarvasaṁyoga).

स्तोत्रकारिणां वा तत्संयोगाद् बहुश्रुतेः ॥ २५ ॥

stotrakāriṇāṁ vā tatsaṁyogād bahuśruteḥ || 25 ||

Or, [it belongs] to those who perform the stotra [chant] (stotrakārin), because of their connection with it, since that is frequently attested [in the text] (bahuśruti).

सर्वे तु वेदसंयोगात् कारणाद् एकदेशे स्यात् ॥ २६ ॥

sarve tu vedasaṁyogāt kāraṇād ekadeśe syāt || 26 ||

But all [would partake], because of connection with the Veda; yet because of the [specific] cause, it would [be restricted] to one part (ekadeśa).

ग्रावस्तुतो भक्षो न विद्यतेऽनाम्नानात् ॥ २७ ॥

grāvastuto bhakṣo na vidyate'nāmnānāt || 27 ||

The portion (bhakṣa) of the grāvastut [priest who praises the pressing-stones] is not established, because it is not mentioned (anāmnāna).

हारियोजने वा सर्वसंयोगात् ॥ २८ ॥

hāriyojane vā sarvasaṁyogāt || 28 ||

Or, in the hāriyojana [rite], because of connection with the whole (sarvasaṁyoga).

चमसिनां वा सन्निधानात् ॥ २९ ॥

camasināṁ vā sannidhānāt || 29 ||

Or, [it belongs] to those who hold the camasa (camasin), because of their proximity (sannidhāna).

सर्वेषां तु विधित्वात् तदर्था चमसिश्रुतिः ॥ ३० ॥

sarveṣāṁ tu vidhitvāt tadarthā camasiśrutiḥ || 30 ||

But because it is an injunction (vidhi) for all, the scriptural mention of the camasin (camasiśruti) exists for that purpose.

वषट्काराच् च भक्षयेत् ॥ ३१ ॥

vaṣaṭkārāc ca bhakṣayet || 31 ||

And because of the vaṣaṭkāra [ritual exclamation], he should partake (bhakṣayet).

होमाभिषवाभ्यां च ॥ ३२ ॥

homābhiṣavābhyāṁ ca || 32 ||

And by both the oblation (homa) and the [soma-]pressing (abhiṣava).

Note: Source prints 'होमाभिषबाभ्यां' with ब in place of व; corrected to 'होमाभिषवाभ्यां' (homābhiṣavābhyām, "by both the oblation and the soma-pressing").

प्रत्यक्षोपदेशाच् चमसानाम् अव्यक्तः शेषे ॥ ३३ ॥

pratyakṣopadeśāc camasānām avyaktaḥ śeṣe || 33 ||

Because of a direct instruction (pratyakṣopadeśa) regarding the camasas, [the rule] is unexpressed (avyakta) as to the remainder (śeṣa).

स्याद् वा कारणभावाद् अनिर्देशश् चमसानां कर्तुस् तद्वचनत्वात् ॥ ३४ ॥

syād vā kāraṇabhāvād anirdeśaś camasānāṁ kartus tadvacanatvāt || 34 ||

Or it would be otherwise, since, owing to the state of being a cause (kāraṇabhāva), there is no [separate] designation (anirdeśa) of the camasas; for the statement (vacana) refers to the agent (kartṛ).

चमसे चान्यदर्शनात् ॥ ३५ ॥

camase cānyadarśanāt || 35 ||

And in the case of the camasa, because of the observation of something else (anyadarśana).

एकपात्रे क्रमाद् अध्वर्युः पूर्वो भक्षयेत् ॥ ३६ ॥

ekapātre kramād adhvaryuḥ pūrvo bhakṣayet || 36 ||

When there is a single vessel (ekapātra), in sequence (krama), the adhvaryu should partake first.

होता वा मन्त्रवर्णात् ॥ ३७ ॥

hotā vā mantravarṇāt || 37 ||

Or, the hotā [priest, partakes first], because of the wording of the mantra (mantravarṇa).

वचनाच् च ॥ ३८ ॥

vacanāc ca || 38 ||

And because of an [explicit] statement (vacana).

कारणानुपूर्व्याच् च ॥ ३९ ॥

kāraṇānupūrvyāc ca || 39 ||

And because of the sequence of causes (kāraṇānupūrvya).

वचनाद् अनुज्ञातभक्षणम् ॥ ४० ॥

vacanād anujñātabhakṣaṇam || 40 ||

By virtue of the statement (vacana), the partaking (bhakṣaṇa) is understood as permitted (anujñāta).

तदुपहूत उपह्वयस्वेत्य् अनेनानुज्ञापयेलिङ्गात् ॥ ४१ ॥

tadupahūta upahvayasvety anenānujñāpayeliṅgāt || 41 ||

Being thus invited (upahūta), he grants permission (anujñāpayet) by means of this formula, 'upahvayasva' [be summoned], on the basis of the indicatory mark (liṅga).

तत्रार्थात् प्रतिवचनम् ॥ ४२ ॥

tatrārthāt prativacanam || 42 ||

There, by implication (artha), there follows a response (prativacana).

तदेकत्राणां समवायात् ॥ ४३ ॥

tadekatrāṇāṁ samavāyāt || 43 ||

Because of the conjunction (samavāya) of those who are together in that one [act/place] (ekatra).

याज्यापनयेनापनीतो भक्षः प्रवरवत् ॥ ४४ ॥

yājyāpanayenāpanīto bhakṣaḥ pravaravat || 44 ||

By the removal that occurs through the yājyā [verse], the portion (bhakṣa) is removed (apanīta), like the pravara [invocation of ancestry].

यष्टुर् वा कारणागमात् ॥ ४५ ॥

yaṣṭur vā kāraṇāgamāt || 45 ||

Or, [it belongs] to the sacrificer (yaṣṭṛ), because of the arrival of the cause (kāraṇāgama).

प्रवृत्तत्वात् प्रवरस्यानपायः ॥ ४६ ॥

pravṛttatvāt pravarasyānapāyaḥ || 46 ||

Because it has already commenced (pravṛtta), there is no cessation (anapāya) of the pravara.

फलचमसो नैमित्तिको भक्षविकारः श्रुतिसंयोगात् ॥ ४७ ॥

phalacamaso naimittiko bhakṣavikāraḥ śrutisaṁyogāt || 47 ||

The 'fruit-cup' (phalacamasa) is occasional (naimittika), a modification of the [regular] portion (bhakṣavikāra), because of a [specific] scriptural connection (śrutisaṁyoga).

इज्याबिकारो वा संस्कारस्य तदर्थत्वात् ॥ ४८ ॥

ijyābikāro vā saṁskārasya tadarthatvāt || 48 ||

Or it is a modification of the offering (ijyāvikāra), since the preparatory rite (saṁskāra) exists for that purpose.

होमात् ॥ ४९ ॥

homāt || 49 ||

By virtue of the oblation (homa).

चमसैश् च तुल्यकालत्वात् ॥ ५० ॥

camasaiś ca tulyakālatvāt || 50 ||

And with the camasas, because of simultaneity (tulyakālatva).

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च ॥ ५१ ॥

liṅgadarśanāc ca || 51 ||

And because of the observed indicatory mark (liṅga).

अनुप्रसर्पिषु सामान्यात् ॥ ५२ ॥

anuprasarpiṣu sāmānyāt || 52 ||

Among those who follow in succession (anuprasarpin), because of the commonality (sāmānya).

ब्रह्मणा वा तुल्यशब्दत्वात् ॥ ५३ ॥

brahmaṇā vā tulyaśabdatvāt || 53 ||

Or, with the brahman [priest], because of the identity of wording (tulyaśabdatva).

तत् सर्वार्थम् अप्रकरणात् ॥ १ ॥

tat sarvārtham aprakaraṇāt || 1 ||

That [element stated in the archetype rite] serves all purposes [applies universally to the derivative rites], because it is not restricted by a [specific] context (prakaraṇa).

प्रकृतौ वाद्विरुक्तत्वात् ॥ २ ॥

prakṛtau vādviruktatvāt || 2 ||

[Objection:] Or, [it belongs] to the archetype (prakṛti) alone, since it is not distinctly/separately stated [for the derivative rite].

तद्वर्जं तु वचनप्राप्ते ॥ ३ ॥

tadvarjaṁ tu vacanaprāpte || 3 ||

But excepting that which is [already independently] established by [express] textual statement.

दर्शनाद् इति चेत् ॥ ४ ॥

darśanād iti cet || 4 ||

[Objection:] If it be said [that the rule holds] because it is [so] observed [in usage]...

न चोदनैकार्थ्यात् ॥ ५ ॥

na codanaikārthyāt || 5 ||

No — because the injunction (codanā) has a single, unified purport.

उत्पत्तिर् इति चेत् ॥ ६ ॥

utpattir iti cet || 6 ||

[Objection:] If it be said that this concerns [the rite's] origination (utpatti)...

न तुल्यत्वात् ॥ ७ ॥

na tulyatvāt || 7 ||

No — because of their equivalence/sameness.

चोदनार्थकार्त्स्न्यात् तु मुख्यविप्रतिषेधात् प्रकृत्यर्थः ॥ ८ ॥

codanārthakārtsnyāt tu mukhyavipratiṣedhāt prakṛtyarthaḥ || 8 ||

But because the injunction's purport is complete [in itself], and because of a conflict with the primary [rite, if applied elsewhere], it belongs to the archetype (prakṛti).

प्रकरणविशेषात् तु विकृतौ विरोधि स्यात् ॥ ९ ॥

prakaraṇaviśeṣāt tu vikṛtau virodhi syāt || 9 ||

But because of a specific context (prakaraṇa), it could be in conflict [when applied] in the derivative rite (vikṛti).

नैमित्तिकं तु प्रकृतौ तद्विकारः संयोगविशेषात् ॥ १० ॥

naimittikaṁ tu prakṛtau tadvikāraḥ saṁyogaviśeṣāt || 10 ||

But that which is occasional (naimittika) in the archetype rite becomes its modification (vikāra) [elsewhere], on account of a specific conjunction [of circumstance].

इष्टयर्थमग्न्याधेयं प्रकरणात् ॥ ११ ॥

iṣṭayartham agnyādheyaṁ prakaraṇāt || 11 ||

The establishment of the [sacrificial] fire (agnyādheya) is for the sake of the iṣṭi, as established by [its] context.

न वा तासां तदर्थत्वात् ॥ १२ ॥

na vā tāsāṁ tadarthatvāt || 12 ||

Or rather, no — because they (fem. pl.) are for the sake of that [other, specific purpose].

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च ॥ १३ ॥

liṅgadarśanāc ca || 13 ||

— and because an indicatory mark (liṅga) [to that effect] is observed.

तत्प्रकृत्यर्थं यथान्येऽनारभ्यवादाः ॥ १४ ॥

tatprakṛtyarthaṁ yathānye'nārabhyavādāḥ || 14 ||

That is for the sake of the archetype (prakṛti), just as other [similar] statements are merely explanatory, non-initiating ones (anārabhyavāda).

सर्वार्थ वाग्न्यधानस्य स्वकालत्वात् ॥ १५ ॥

sarvārtha vāgnyadhānasya svakālatvāt || 15 ||

Or, [the establishment of the fire] is for all purposes, since it has its own [independent, fixed] time.

तासाम् अग्निः प्रकृतितः प्रयाजवत् स्यात् ॥ १६ ॥

tāsām agniḥ prakṛtitaḥ prayājavat syāt || 16 ||

For them, the fire should follow from the archetype (prakṛti), just as the prayājas [preliminary offerings] do.

न वा तासां तदर्थत्वात् ॥ १७ ॥

na vā tāsāṁ tadarthatvāt || 17 ||

Or rather, no — because they are for the sake of that [other, specific purpose].

तुल्यः सर्वेषां पशुविधिः प्रकरणाविशेषात् ॥ १८ ॥

tulyaḥ sarveṣāṁ paśuvidhiḥ prakaraṇāviśeṣāt || 18 ||

The rule for the sacrificial animal (paśuvidhi) is the same for all [rites], since the context is not differentiated.

स्थानाच् च पूर्वस्य ॥ १९ ॥

sthānāc ca pūrvasya || 19 ||

— and [that follows] from the [textual/sequential] position (sthāna) of the earlier [statement].

श्वस् त्व् एकेषां तत्र प्राक्श्रुतिर् गुणार्था ॥ २० ॥

śvas tv ekeṣāṁ tatra prākśrutir guṇārthā || 20 ||

But, for some [rites, in the matter of] 'tomorrow' (śvaḥ), there the earlier-stated scriptural passage (prākśruti) serves only a subordinate purpose (guṇārtha).

तेनोत्कृष्टस्य कालविधिर् इति चेत् ॥ २१ ॥

tenotkṛṣṭasya kālavidhir iti cet || 21 ||

[Objection:] If it be said that, thereby, a time-rule (kālavidhi) is established for the more excellent [element]...

नैकदेशत्वात् ॥ २२ ॥

naikadeśatvāt || 22 ||

[No —] because it is not [confined to being merely] a part [of it].

अर्थेनेति चेत् ॥ २३ ॥

arthaneti cet || 23 ||

[Objection:] If it be said, [it is] by reason of the [intended] sense (artha)...

न श्रुतिविप्रतिषेधात् ॥ २४ ॥

na śrutivipratiṣedhāt || 24 ||

No — because [that] would conflict with śruti [a direct scriptural statement].

स्थानात् तु पूर्वस्य संस्कारस्य तदर्थत्वात् ॥ २५ ॥

sthānāt tu pūrvasya saṁskārasya tadarthatvāt || 25 ||

But [it follows] from the [textual] position of the earlier purificatory rite (saṁskāra), since it is for the sake of that [main rite].

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च ॥ २६ ॥

liṅgadarśanāc ca || 26 ||

— and because an indicatory mark (liṅga) is also observed.

अचोदना गुणार्थेन ॥ २७ ॥

acodanā guṇārthena || 27 ||

There is no [separate] injunction (codanā), on account of its [merely] subordinate purport (guṇārtha).

दोहयोः कालभेदाद् असंयुक्तं शृतं स्यात् ॥ २८ ॥

dohayoḥ kālabhedād asaṁyuktaṁ śṛtaṁ syāt || 28 ||

Because of the difference in time between the two milkings (doha), the boiled [milk offering] should be treated as unconnected [i.e., taken separately for each].

प्रकरणविभागाद् वा तत्संयुक्तस्य कालशास्त्रम् ॥ २९ ॥

prakaraṇavibhāgād vā tatsaṁyuktasya kālaśāstram || 29 ||

Or, on account of the division of context, the time-rule (kālaśāstra) applies to that which is [treated as] joined [i.e., the combined offering].

तद्वत् सवनान्तरे ग्रहाम्नानम् ॥ ३० ॥

tadvat savanāntare grahāmnānam || 30 ||

Likewise, the mention of the [soma-]cup (graha) at another pressing (savana) [follows the same principle].

रशना च लिङ्गदर्शनात् ॥ ३१ ॥

raśanā ca liṅgadarśanāt || 31 ||

And the [ritual] cord (raśanā) [follows likewise], because an indicatory mark is observed.

आराच् छिष्टम् असंयुक्तम् इतरैः सन्निधानात् ॥ ३२ ॥

ārāc chiṣṭam asaṁyuktam itaraiḥ sannidhānāt || 32 ||

What is specially taught from a remote [position in the text] is unconnected [with that rite]; [rather it connects] with the others, on account of proximity.

संयुक्तं वा तदर्थत्वाच् छेषस्य तन्निमित्तत्वात् ॥ ३३ ॥

saṁyuktaṁ vā tadarthatvāc cheṣasya tannimittatvāt || 33 ||

Or, [it is] connected, because it serves that purpose — the subordinate element (śeṣa) having that as its occasioning cause (nimitta).

निर्देशाद् व्यवतिष्ठेत ॥ ३४ ॥

nirdeśād vyavatiṣṭheta || 34 ||

From the [express] designation (nirdeśa), it would be settled distinctly.

अग्न्यङ्गम् अप्रकरणे तद्वत् ॥ ३५ ॥

agnyaṅgam aprakaraṇe tadvat || 35 ||

A subordinate rite (aṅga) of the fire[-ritual], when mentioned outside its [proper] context, is treated likewise [by the same principle].

नैमित्तिकम् अतुल्यत्वाद् असमानविधानां स्यात् ॥ ३६ ॥

naimittikam atulyatvād asamānavidhānāṁ syāt || 36 ||

The occasional (naimittika) [element] would belong to [rites] having dissimilar injunctions (vidhāna), on account of [their] dissimilarity.

Note: Source prints 'असमानविथानां' with थ in place of ध; corrected to 'असमानविधानां' (asamānavidhānām, "of [rites] having dissimilar injunctions").

प्रतिनिधिश् च मिमांसा ॥ ३७ ॥

pratinidhiś ca mimāṁsā || 37 ||

And [the question of] a substitute (pratinidhi) is a matter for deliberation (mīmāṁsā).

तद्वत्प्रयोजनैकत्वात् ॥ ३८ ॥

tadvatprayojanaikatvāt || 38 ||

Likewise, because of the unity of purpose [involved].

अशास्त्रलक्षणत्वाच्च ॥ ३९ ॥

aśāstralakṣaṇatvāc ca || 39 ||

— and because it is not [directly] defined by scriptural injunction (śāstra).

नियमार्था गुणश्रुतिः ॥ ४० ॥

niyamārthā guṇaśrutiḥ || 40 ||

The subordinate scriptural statement (guṇaśruti) serves the purpose of restriction (niyama).

संस्थास् तु समानविधानाः प्रकरणाविशेषात् ॥ ४१ ॥

saṁsthās tu samānavidhānāḥ prakaraṇāviśeṣāt || 41 ||

But the [various] ritual conclusions (saṁsthā) have the same rule [applying to them], since the context is not differentiated.

व्यपदेशश् च तुल्यवत् ॥ ४२ ॥

vyapadeśaś ca tulyavat || 42 ||

And the designation (vyapadeśa) [applies] on a par [with the others].

विकासस् तु कामसंयोगे नित्यस्य समत्वात् ॥ ४३ ॥

vikāsas tu kāmasaṁyoge nityasya samatvāt || 43 ||

But there is an expansion [of options] (vikāsa) when [the rite] is connected with a [specific] desire [i.e., a kāmya rite], because of its equality with the obligatory (nitya) [rite].

अपि वा द्विरुक्तत्वात् प्रकृतेर् भविष्यन्तीति ॥ ४४ ॥

api vā dviruktatvāt prakṛter bhaviṣyantīti || 44 ||

Or rather, because [the rule] is stated twice, [the derivative elements] will arise from the archetype (prakṛti) — so [it is held].

बचनात् तु समुच्चयः ॥ ४५ ॥

bacanāt tu samuccayaḥ || 45 ||

But from [an express] textual statement (vacana), there is combination (samuccaya) [i.e., both apply together].

प्रतिषेधाच् च पूर्वलिङ्गनाम् ॥ ४६ ॥

pratiṣedhāc ca pūrvaliṅganām || 46 ||

— and because of a prohibition regarding those [elements] having a prior indicatory mark (liṅga).

गुणविशेषाद् एकस्य व्यपदेशः ॥ ४७ ॥

guṇaviśeṣād ekasya vyapadeśaḥ || 47 ||

On account of a particular attribute (guṇa), the designation applies to [just] one.

प्रकरणविशेषाद् असंयुक्तं प्रधानस्य ॥ १ ॥

prakaraṇaviśeṣād asaṁyuktaṁ pradhānasya || 1 ||

On account of a specific context (prakaraṇa), that element, though [seemingly] unconnected, belongs to the principal (pradhāna) [rite].

सर्वेषां वा शेषत्वस्यातत्प्रयुक्तत्वात् ॥ २ ॥

sarveṣāṁ vā śeṣatvasyātatprayuktatvāt || 2 ||

Or, [it belongs] to all [the subordinate elements] by virtue of their subordinate status (śeṣatva), since they are not employed for that [other] purpose.

आरादपीति चेत् ॥ ३ ॥

ārādapīti cet || 3 ||

[Objection:] If it be said, [it applies] even from a distance [i.e., even when remote in the text]...

न तद्वाक्यं हि तदर्थत्वात् ॥ ४ ॥

na tadvākyaṁ hi tadarthatvāt || 4 ||

No — for that is not [read as] a single [syntactically-unified] sentence (vākya), since it serves [a separate] purpose.

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च ॥ ५ ॥

liṅgadarśanāc ca || 5 ||

— and because an indicatory mark (liṅga) is observed.

फलसंयोगात् तु स्वामियुक्तं प्रधानस्य ॥ ६ ॥

phalasaṁyogāt tu svāmiyuktaṁ pradhānasya || 6 ||

But because of its connection with the fruit (phala), the principal act (pradhāna) is connected with the owner (svāmin) [i.e., the yajamāna].

चिकीर्षयो च संयोगात् ॥ ७ ॥

cikīrṣayo ca saṁyogāt || 7 ||

— and by reason of connection with the desire to perform [it] (cikīrṣā).

तथाभिधानेन ॥ ८ ॥

tathābhidhānena || 8 ||

Thus, by [express] designation (abhidhāna) [also].

तद्युक्ते तु फलश्रुतिस् तस्मात् सर्वचिकीर्षा स्यात् ॥ ९ ॥

tadyukte tu phalaśrutis tasmāt sarvacikīrṣā syāt || 9 ||

But when the statement of fruit (phalaśruti) is connected with that, then the desire to perform [it] (cikīrṣā) should belong to all [concerned].

गुणाभिधानात् सर्वार्थम् अभिधानम् ॥ १० ॥

guṇābhidhānāt sarvārtham abhidhānam || 10 ||

Because it is a statement about a subordinate quality (guṇa), that statement applies for all purposes.

दीक्षादक्षिणं तु वचनात् प्रधानस्य ॥ ११ ॥

dīkṣādakṣiṇaṁ tu vacanāt pradhānasya || 11 ||

But the fee (dakṣiṇā) for the consecration (dīkṣā) belongs to the principal act (pradhāna), on the strength of [express] textual statement.

निवृत्तिदर्शनाच्च ॥ १२ ॥

nivṛttidarśanāc ca || 12 ||

— and because a cessation (nivṛtti) [of it elsewhere] is observed.

तथा यूपस्य वेदि ॥ १३ ॥

tathā yūpasya vedi || 13 ||

Likewise [is the relation of] the altar (vedi) to the sacrificial post (yūpa).

देशमात्रं वा शिष्टेनैकवाक्यत्वात् ॥ १४ ॥

deśamātraṁ vā śiṣṭenaikavākyatvāt || 14 ||

Or, it indicates merely a place, because of forming one [syntactically unified] sentence (ekavākyatā) with what is [already] enjoined.

सामधेनीस् तद् अन्वाहुर् इति हविर् द्धानयोर् वचनात् सामधेनीनाम् ॥ १५ ॥

sāmadhenīs tad anvāhur iti havir ddhānayor vacanāt sāmadhenīnām || 15 ||

'They recite the Sāmadhenī [verses] following that' — thus, on the strength of a statement concerning the two Havirdhāna [carts/altars], [the same holds] for the Sāmadhenī [verses].

देशमात्रं वा प्रत्यक्षं ह्य् अर्थकर्म सोमस्य ॥ १६ ॥

deśamātraṁ vā pratyakṣaṁ hy arthakarma somasya || 16 ||

Or, it indicates merely a place, for the substantive act (arthakarma) concerning the soma is [directly] evident (pratyakṣa).

Note: Wikisource's citation marker for this sutra prints '-३,७.२६' (sutra 26), inconsistent with its position in the sequence (...15, [26], 17, 18...). The Sanskrit text itself is intact and complete; only the printed citation number is a transcription slip. Resolved via this project's established policy of clean sequential position-numbering as ground truth (cf. nyaya-sutra.4.2.46 precedent); renumbered as sutra 16 here.

समाख्यानं च तद्वत् ॥ १७ ॥

samākhyānaṁ ca tadvat || 17 ||

And the [conventional] naming (samākhyā) [follows] likewise.

शास्त्रफलं प्रयोक्तरि तल्लक्षणत्वात् तस्मात् स्वयं प्रयोगे स्यात् ॥ १८ ॥

śāstraphalaṁ prayoktari tallakṣaṇatvāt tasmāt svayaṁ prayoge syāt || 18 ||

The fruit ordained by scripture (śāstraphala) accrues to the performer (prayoktṛ), since [the rite] is defined by that [performer]; therefore one should personally [undertake] the performance.

उत्सर्गे तु प्रधानत्वाच् छेषकारी प्रधानस्य तस्माद् अन्यः स्वयं वा स्यात् ॥ १९ ॥

utsarge tu pradhānatvāc cheṣakārī pradhānasya tasmād anyaḥ svayaṁ vā syāt || 19 ||

But in the general case, because of the [status of the] principal act, the performer of the subordinate acts (śeṣakārī) acts for the principal [agent]; therefore either another [person] or [the agent] himself may [perform it].

अन्यो वा स्यात् परिक्रयाम्नानाद् विप्रतिषेधात् प्रत्यग् आत्मनि ॥ २० ॥

anyo vā syāt parikrayāmnānād vipratiṣedhāt pratyag ātmani || 20 ||

Or it may be another [person, i.e., a hired substitute], because of the mention of hiring (parikraya); [this holds] because of a conflict [with performing it] directly by oneself.

तत्रार्थात् कर्तृपरिमाणं स्याद् अनियमोऽविशेषात् ॥ २१ ॥

tatrārthāt kartṛparimāṇaṁ syād aniyamo'viśeṣāt || 21 ||

There, by implication (artha), the number of performers (kartṛparimāṇa) would be [determined]; [otherwise] there is no restriction, since no distinction [is made].

अपि वा श्रुति भेदात् प्रतिनामधेयं स्युः ॥ २२ ॥

api vā śruti bhedāt pratināmadheyaṁ syuḥ || 22 ||

Or rather, because of a difference in the scriptural statement (śruti), they would [each] have their own distinct designation.

Note: Wikisource's citation marker for this sutra prints '-३,७.१२' (sutra 12), duplicating an earlier printed number in a run of seven consecutive mistranscribed markers (12-18 reprinted where 22-28 structurally belong). The Sanskrit text itself is intact and complete; only the printed citation numbers are a transcription slip. Resolved via this project's established policy of clean sequential position-numbering as ground truth (cf. nyaya-sutra.4.2.46 precedent); renumbered as sutra 22 here.

एकस्य कर्मभेदाद् इति चेत् ॥ २३ ॥

ekasya karmabhedād iti cet || 23 ||

[Objection:] If it be said [it is the designation] of a single [officiant], on account of a difference of function (karma)...

Note: Wikisource's citation marker for this sutra prints '-३,७.१३' (sutra 13), duplicating an earlier printed number in a run of seven consecutive mistranscribed markers (12-18 reprinted where 22-28 structurally belong). The Sanskrit text itself is intact and complete; only the printed citation numbers are a transcription slip. Resolved via this project's established policy of clean sequential position-numbering as ground truth (cf. nyaya-sutra.4.2.46 precedent); renumbered as sutra 23 here.

नोत्पत्तौ हि ॥ २४ ॥

notpattau hi || 24 ||

No — indeed, not with regard to [their] origination (utpatti).

Note: Wikisource's citation marker for this sutra prints '-३,७.१४' (sutra 14), duplicating an earlier printed number in a run of seven consecutive mistranscribed markers (12-18 reprinted where 22-28 structurally belong). The Sanskrit text itself is intact and complete; only the printed citation numbers are a transcription slip. Resolved via this project's established policy of clean sequential position-numbering as ground truth (cf. nyaya-sutra.4.2.46 precedent); renumbered as sutra 24 here.

चमसाध्वर्यवश् च तैर् व्यपदेशात् ॥ २५ ॥

camasādhvaryavaś ca tair vyapadeśāt || 25 ||

And [there are] the Camasādhvaryu [priests], on account of [their] designation by them [i.e., by the camasa cups].

Note: Wikisource's citation marker for this sutra prints '-३,७.१५' (sutra 15), duplicating an earlier printed number in a run of seven consecutive mistranscribed markers (12-18 reprinted where 22-28 structurally belong). The Sanskrit text itself is intact and complete; only the printed citation numbers are a transcription slip. Resolved via this project's established policy of clean sequential position-numbering as ground truth (cf. nyaya-sutra.4.2.46 precedent); renumbered as sutra 25 here.

उत्पत्तौ तु बहुश्रुतेः ॥ २६ ॥

utpattau tu bahuśruteḥ || 26 ||

But with regard to [their] origination, [it is] because of a scriptural statement in the plural (bahuśruti).

Note: Wikisource's citation marker for this sutra prints '-३,७.१६' (sutra 16), duplicating an earlier printed number in a run of seven consecutive mistranscribed markers (12-18 reprinted where 22-28 structurally belong). The Sanskrit text itself is intact and complete; only the printed citation numbers are a transcription slip. Resolved via this project's established policy of clean sequential position-numbering as ground truth (cf. nyaya-sutra.4.2.46 precedent); renumbered as sutra 26 here.

दशत्वं लिङ्गदर्शनात् ॥ २७ ॥

daśatvaṁ liṅgadarśanāt || 27 ||

[Their number being] ten is [established] because an indicatory mark (liṅga) is observed.

Note: Wikisource's citation marker for this sutra prints '-३,७.१७' (sutra 17), duplicating an earlier printed number in a run of seven consecutive mistranscribed markers (12-18 reprinted where 22-28 structurally belong). The Sanskrit text itself is intact and complete; only the printed citation numbers are a transcription slip. Resolved via this project's established policy of clean sequential position-numbering as ground truth (cf. nyaya-sutra.4.2.46 precedent); renumbered as sutra 27 here.

शमिता च शब्दभेदात् ॥ २८ ॥

śamitā ca śabdabhedāt || 28 ||

And the Śamitṛ [is a distinct officiant], because of the difference of the term [used for him].

Note: Wikisource's citation marker for this sutra prints '-३,७.१८' (sutra 18), duplicating an earlier printed number in a run of seven consecutive mistranscribed markers (12-18 reprinted where 22-28 structurally belong). The Sanskrit text itself is intact and complete; only the printed citation numbers are a transcription slip. Resolved via this project's established policy of clean sequential position-numbering as ground truth (cf. nyaya-sutra.4.2.46 precedent); renumbered as sutra 28 here.

प्रकरणाद् वोत्पत्त्यसंयोगात् ॥ २९ ॥

prakaraṇād votpattyasaṁyogāt || 29 ||

Or, from the context, because of [his] non-connection with [their common] origination.

उपगाश् च लिङ्गदर्शनात् ॥ ३० ॥

upagāś ca liṅgadarśanāt || 30 ||

And [there are also] the Upagātṛs, because an indicatory mark is observed.

विक्रयी त्वन्यः कर्मणोऽचोदित्वात् ॥ ३१ ॥

vikrayī tvanyaḥ karmaṇo'coditvāt || 31 ||

But the seller [of the soma] (vikrayin) is different [from the officiants], since he is not enjoined as part of the [ritual] act.

कर्मकार्यात् सर्वेषाम् ऋत्विक्त्वम् अविशेषात् ॥ ३२ ॥

karmakāryāt sarveṣām ṛtviktvam aviśeṣāt || 32 ||

Because of [their] being necessary to the [ritual] act, priesthood (ṛtviktva) belongs to all [participants alike], since no distinction [is made].

न वा परिसंख्यानात् ॥ ३३ ॥

na vā parisaṁkhyānāt || 33 ||

Or rather, no — because of an exclusive enumeration (parisaṁkhyāna) [i.e., a restrictive listing].

पक्षेणेति चेत् ॥ ३४ ॥

pakṣeṇeti cet || 34 ||

[Objection:] If it be said, [this applies only] as an option (pakṣa)...

न सर्वेषाम् अधिकारः ॥ ३५ ॥

na sarveṣām adhikāraḥ || 35 ||

No — not all [of them] have the eligibility (adhikāra) [in that way].

नियमस् तु दक्षिणाभिः श्रुतिसंयोगात् ॥ ३६ ॥

niyamas tu dakṣiṇābhiḥ śrutisaṁyogāt || 36 ||

But there is a restriction (niyama) by means of the [priestly] fees (dakṣiṇā), on account of [their] connection with a scriptural statement.

उक्त्वा च यजमानत्वं तेषां दीक्षाबिधानात् ॥ ३७ ॥

uktvā ca yajamānatvaṁ teṣāṁ dīkṣābidhānāt || 37 ||

And, having declared [their] status as sacrificer (yajamānatva), [this follows] because of the injunction of their consecration (dīkṣā).

स्वामिसप्तदशाः कर्मसामान्यात् ॥ ३८ ॥

svāmisaptadaśāḥ karmasāmānyāt || 38 ||

The owner (svāmin) together with the seventeen [officiants] (saptadaśa), by reason of the commonality of the [ritual] act.

ते सर्वार्थाः प्रयुक्तत्वाद् अग्नयश् च स्वकालत्वात् ॥ ३९ ॥

te sarvārthāḥ prayuktatvād agnayaś ca svakālatvāt || 39 ||

They serve all purposes, because they are employed [throughout]; and the [sacred] fires likewise, because they have their own [fixed] time.

तत्सयोगात् कर्मणो व्यवस्था स्यात् संयोगास्यार्थवत्वात् ॥ ४० ॥

tatsayogāt karmaṇo vyavasthā syāt saṁyogāsyārthavatvāt || 40 ||

Because of connection with that, there would be a fixed distribution (vyavasthā) of the [ritual] act, since the connection [itself] has a [definite] purpose.

तस्योपदेशसमाख्यानेन निर्देशः ॥ ४१ ॥

tasyopadeśasamākhyānena nirdeśaḥ || 41 ||

For that, the specification (nirdeśa) is by means of the designation given in the [scriptural] teaching (upadeśa).

तद्वच् च लिङ्गदर्शम् ॥ ४२ ॥

tadvac ca liṅgadarśam || 42 ||

And likewise by the observation of an indicatory mark (liṅgadarśana).

प्रैषानुवचनं मैत्रावरुणस्योपदेशात् ॥ ४३ ॥

praiṣānuvacanaṁ maitrāvaruṇasyopadeśāt || 43 ||

The recitation of the [ritual] command (praiṣānuvacana) belongs to the Maitrāvaruṇa [priest], because of [express] scriptural instruction.

पुरोऽनुवाक्याधिकारो वा प्रैषसन्निधानात् ॥ ४४ ॥

puro'nuvākyādhikāro vā praiṣasannidhānāt || 44 ||

Or, [it is] the authority/office over the puro'nuvākyā [invitatory verse], because of the proximity of the [ritual] command (praiṣa).

प्रातर् अनुवाके च होतृदर्शनात् ॥ ४५ ॥

prātar anuvāke ca hotṛdarśanāt || 45 ||

And in the morning litany (prātaranuvāka), because the [role of the] Hotṛ [priest] is observed [there].

चमसांश्चमसाध्वर्यवः सामाख्यानात् ॥ ४६ ॥

camasāṁś camasādhvaryavaḥ sāmākhyānāt || 46 ||

The Camasādhvaryu [priests handle] the camasa cups, because of [their] shared designation (samākhyāna).

अध्वर्युर्वा तन्न्यायत्वात् ॥ ४७ ॥

adhvaryur vā tannyāyatvāt || 47 ||

Or, [it is] the Adhvaryu [priest, who handles them], because that is the [general] principle (nyāya) [governing such matters].

चमसे चान्यदर्शनात् ॥ ४८ ॥

camase cānyadarśanāt || 48 ||

And with regard to the camasa [cup], because something different is observed [there].

अशक्तौ ते प्रतीयेरन् ॥ ४९ ॥

aśaktau te pratīyeran || 49 ||

In case of incapacity (aśakti) [of the proper officiant], they [i.e., substitutes] would be recognized [as acceptable].

वेदोपदेशात् पूर्ववद्वेदान्यत्वे यथोपदेशं स्युः ॥ ५० ॥

vedopadeśāt pūrvavadvedānyatve yathopadeśaṁ syuḥ || 50 ||

Because of the instruction proper to [each] Veda [branch], as before; but where there is a difference of Veda [branch], they would be [governed] according to [that Veda's own] instruction.

तद्गुणाद् वा स्वधर्मः स्याद् अधिकारसामथ्यात् सहाङ्गैर् अव्यक्तः शेषे ॥ ५१ ॥

tadguṇād vā svadharmaḥ syād adhikārasāmathyāt sahāṅgair avyaktaḥ śeṣe || 51 ||

Or, on account of being subordinate to that, one's own proper function (svadharma) would hold, by force of [one's ritual] eligibility (adhikāra); it remains unexpressed [individually], together with the [other] subordinate limbs (aṅga), within the subordinate whole (śeṣa).

स्वामिकर्मपरिक्रयः कर्मणस् तदर्थत्वात् ॥ १ ॥

svāmikarmaparikrayaḥ karmaṇas tadarthatvāt || 1 ||

The procurement/hiring [of priests] for the ritual act (karma) belongs to the svāmin (patron), because the act exists for his sake (tadarthatva).

वचनाद् इतरेषां स्यात् ॥ २ ॥

vacanād itareṣāṁ syāt || 2 ||

[Objection:] But by [express scriptural] statement (vacana), it might belong to others as well.

संस्कारास् तु पुरुषसामर्थ्ये यथावेदं कर्मवद्व्यवतिष्ठेरन् ॥ ३ ॥

saṁskārās tu puruṣasāmarthye yathāvedaṁ karmavadvyavatiṣṭheran || 3 ||

The saṁskāras (purificatory rites), however, with respect to the capacity of the person (puruṣa-sāmarthya), would be apportioned according to the Veda, just like the [main ritual] act.

याजमानास् तु तत्प्रधानत्वात् कर्मवत् ॥ ४ ॥

yājamānās tu tatpradhānatvāt karmavat || 4 ||

The rites pertaining to the yajamāna (yājamāna), however, [belong to him] like the [main] act, because of his being principal (pradhāna) in them.

व्यपदेशाच् च ॥ ५ ॥

vyapadeśāc ca || 5 ||

And because of [scriptural] designation (vyapadeśa) [with reference to the yajamāna].

गुणत्त्वे तस्य निर्देशः ॥ ६ ॥

guṇattve tasya nirdeśaḥ || 6 ||

When [an element] is a guṇa (subordinate quality), the direction/reference (nirdeśa) concerning it is made in relation to him [the yajamāna].

चोदना प्रति भावाच् च ॥ ७ ॥

codanā prati bhāvāc ca || 7 ||

And because [it] has reference to (exists relative to) the injunction (codanā).

अतुल्यत्वाद् असमानविधानाः स्युः ॥ ८ ॥

atulyatvād asamānavidhānāḥ syuḥ || 8 ||

Because of non-equivalence (atulyatva), the rules/injunctions (vidhāna) would be non-uniform (asamāna).

तपश् च फलसिद्धित्वाल् लोकवत् ॥ ९ ॥

tapaś ca phalasiddhitvāl lokavat || 9 ||

And tapas (austerity), being for the accomplishment of the fruit (phala), is [governed] as in ordinary worldly usage (lokavat).

वाक्यशेषश् च तद्वत् ॥ १० ॥

vākyaśeṣaś ca tadvat || 10 ||

And the supplementary part of the sentence (vākyaśeṣa) is likewise (tadvat).

वचनाद् इतरेषां स्यात् ॥ ११ ॥

vacanād itareṣāṁ syāt || 11 ||

[Objection, repeated:] But by [scriptural] statement, it might belong to others.

गुणत्वाच् च वेदेन न व्यवस्था स्यात् ॥ १२ ॥

guṇatvāc ca vedena na vyavasthā syāt || 12 ||

And because of being a guṇa (subordinate quality), there would be no [fixed] determination (vyavasthā) by the Veda.

तथा कामोऽर्थसंयोगात् ॥ १३ ॥

tathā kāmo 'rthasaṁyogāt || 13 ||

Similarly, desire (kāma) [is apportioned] on account of connection with the object/purpose (artha-saṁyoga).

व्यपदेशाद् इतरेषां स्यात् ॥ १४ ॥

vyapadeśād itareṣāṁ syāt || 14 ||

From [scriptural] designation, [this] would belong to others.

मन्त्राश् चाकर्मकरणास् तद्वत् ॥ १५ ॥

mantrāś cākarmakaraṇās tadvat || 15 ||

And mantras that are not instruments of the [ritual] act (akarma-karaṇa) are likewise (tadvat).

विप्रयोगे च दर्शनात् ॥ १६ ॥

viprayoge ca darśanāt || 16 ||

And in [case of] separation/disjunction (viprayoga), because of [scriptural] observation (darśana).

द्व्याम्नातेषूभौ द्व्याम्नानस्यार्थवत्त्वात् ॥ १७ ॥

dvyāmnāteṣūbhau dvyāmnānasyārthavattvāt || 17 ||

In [cases] that are twice-recited (dvyāmnāta), both [alternatives hold], because the twice-recitation (dvyāmnāna) is meaningful/purposeful (arthavattva).

ज्ञाते च वाचनं न ह्य् अविद्वान् विहितोऽस्ति ॥ १८ ॥

jñāte ca vācanaṁ na hy avidvān vihito 'sti || 18 ||

And when [the matter] is [already] known, there is no [need for further] statement (vacana); for one who is not learned (avidvān) is not qualified/enjoined (vihita) [for the rite].

याजमाने समाख्यानात् कर्माणि याजमानं स्युः ॥ १९ ॥

yājamāne samākhyānāt karmāṇi yājamānaṁ syuḥ || 19 ||

Because of the [technical] designation (samākhyāna) in reference to the yajamāna, the [ritual] acts would belong to the yajamāna.

अध्वर्युर् वा तदर्थो हि न्यायपूर्वे समाख्यानम् ॥ २० ॥

adhvaryur vā tadartho hi nyāyapūrve samākhyānam || 20 ||

[Objection:] Or rather [they belong] to the adhvaryu, for he exists for that purpose (tadartha); the [technical] designation (samākhyāna) follows where the proper rule (nyāya) takes precedence.

विप्रतिषेधे करणः समावायविशेषाद् इतरम् अन्यस् तेषां यतो विशेषः स्यात् ॥ २१ ॥

vipratiṣedhe karaṇaḥ samāvāyaviśeṣād itaram anyas teṣāṁ yato viśeṣaḥ syāt || 21 ||

[Reply:] In case of conflict, the doer/agent (karaṇa) [is determined] by a particular combination (samāvāya-viśeṣa); [it is] the other/different one among them (anya), from which the distinction (viśeṣa) would arise. [Note: this sutra's syntax is exceptionally compressed and its exact division is uncertain; rendered as literally as the terse Sanskrit allows.]

Note: This sutra's syntax is exceptionally compressed and its clause division admits more than one construal; rendered as literally as the terse Sanskrit allows rather than resolved to a single unambiguous reading.

प्रैषेणु च पराधिकारात् ॥ २२ ॥

praiṣeṇu ca parādhikārāt || 22 ||

And by the praiṣa (ritual command/directive), because of the authority (adhikāra) belonging to another (para). [Note: the form "praiṣeṇu" in the source text is an unusual construction; rendered here as an instrumental of praiṣa.]

Note: The form "praiṣeṇu" is an unusual/irregular construction in the source; rendered here as an instrumental of praiṣa, the most coherent reading available.

अध्वर्युस् तु दर्शनात् ॥ २३ ॥

adhvaryus tu darśanāt || 23 ||

But the adhvaryu, because of [scriptural] observation (darśana).

गौणो वा कर्मसामान्यात् ॥ २४ ॥

gauṇo vā karmasāmānyāt || 24 ||

Or [the term is used] in a secondary/figurative sense (gauṇa), on account of the generality of the act (karma-sāmānya).

ऋत्विक् फलं करणेष्व् अर्थत्त्वात् ॥ २५ ॥

ṛtvik phalaṁ karaṇeṣv arthattvāt || 25 ||

The fruit [accrues] to the ṛtvij (priest) with respect to the instruments/means (karaṇa) [of the rite], because these have purpose/interest (arthatva) for him.

स्वामिनो वा तदर्थत्वात् ॥ २६ ॥

svāmino vā tadarthatvāt || 26 ||

Or [the fruit belongs] to the svāmin, because [the act] exists for his sake (tadarthatva).

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च ॥ २७ ॥

liṅgadarśanāc ca || 27 ||

And because of the observation of an indicatory mark (liṅga).

कर्मार्थ फलं तेषां स्वामिनं प्रत्यर्थवत्त्वात् ॥ २८ ॥

karmārtha phalaṁ teṣāṁ svāminaṁ pratyarthavattvāt || 28 ||

The fruit is for the sake of the act, [and accrues] to them [the priests, only derivatively] — [in truth] to the svāmin, because it is meaningful/purposeful (arthavattva) with reference to (prati) the svāmin. [Note: this sutra's elliptical syntax permits more than one construal; rendered to preserve its balancing of "them" (the priests) against the svāmin.]

Note: This sutra's elliptical syntax permits more than one construal of how "them" (the priests) and the svāmin relate to the fruit; rendered to preserve the sutra's own balancing of the two readings rather than collapsing to one.

व्यपदेशाच् च ॥ २९ ॥

vyapadeśāc ca || 29 ||

And because of [scriptural] designation (vyapadeśa).

द्रव्यसंस्कारः प्रकारणाविशेषात् सर्वकर्मणाम् ॥ ३० ॥

dravyasaṁskāraḥ prakāraṇāviśeṣāt sarvakarmaṇām || 30 ||

The saṁskāra (purification/preparation) of the substance (dravya), because there is no distinction of context (prakaraṇa), applies to all [such ritual] acts alike.

निर्देशात् तु विकृताव् अपूर्वस्यानधिकारः ॥ ३१ ॥

nirdeśāt tu vikṛtāv apūrvasyānadhikāraḥ || 31 ||

But, because of [express] direction (nirdeśa), in the vikṛti (derivative rite) there is no entitlement/application (anadhikāra) for what is newly introduced (apūrva) beyond what is stated.

विरोधे च श्रुतिविशेषाद् अव्यक्तः शेषे ॥ ३२ ॥

virodhe ca śrutiviśeṣād avyaktaḥ śeṣe || 32 ||

And in case of conflict, because of a particular śruti (specific scriptural statement), [the matter] remains unexpressed/unclear (avyakta) with regard to the śeṣa (subordinate element).

अपनयस् त्व् एकदेशस्य विद्यमानसंयोगात् ॥ ३३ ॥

apanayas tv ekadeśasya vidyamānasaṁyogāt || 33 ||

But the removal/exclusion (apanaya) applies only to a part (ekadeśa), because of its already-existing connection (vidyamāna-saṁyoga).

विकृतौ सर्वार्थः शेषः प्रकृतिवत् ॥ ३४ ॥

vikṛtau sarvārthaḥ śeṣaḥ prakṛtivat || 34 ||

In the vikṛti, the śeṣa (subordinate element) serves the entire purpose (sarvārtha), just as in the prakṛti (archetype rite).

मुख्यार्थो वाङ्गस्याचोदितत्वात् ॥ ३५ ॥

mukhyārtho vāṅgasyācoditatvāt || 35 ||

Or [it is understood] in its primary/literal sense (mukhyārtha), because the aṅga (subordinate limb) is not [separately] enjoined (acodita).

सन्निधानाविशेषाद् असम्भवेद् अतदङ्गानाम् ॥ ३६ ॥

sannidhānāviśeṣād asambhaved atadaṅgānām || 36 ||

Because there is no distinction in proximity/context (sannidhāna), it would not be possible for those that are not its aṅgas (atad-aṅga) [to be included].

आधानेऽपि तथेति चेत् ॥ ३७ ॥

ādhāne 'pi tatheti cet || 37 ||

[Objection:] If it be said that in the ādhāna (establishment of the sacred fire) too it is the same —

नाप्रकरणत्वाद् अङ्गस्यातन्निमित्तत्वात् ॥ ३८ ॥

nāprakaraṇatvād aṅgasyātannimittatvāt || 38 ||

[Reply:] No, because it does not belong to [that] context/topic (aprakaraṇatva), and because the aṅga does not have that as its occasion (atan-nimittatva).

तत्काले वा लिङ्गदर्शनात् ॥ ३९ ॥

tatkāle vā liṅgadarśanāt || 39 ||

Or, at that [same] time, because of the observation of an indicatory mark (liṅga).

सर्वेषां वाविशेषात् ॥ ४० ॥

sarveṣāṁ vāviśeṣāt || 40 ||

Or, of all [of them], because there is no distinction (aviśeṣa).

न्यायोक्ते लिङ्गदर्शनम् ॥ ४१ ॥

nyāyokte liṅgadarśanam || 41 ||

When the proper rule/principle (nyāya) is stated, [there follows] the observation of an indicatory mark (liṅga).

मांसं तु सवनीयानां चोदनाविशेषात् ॥ ४२ ॥

māṁsaṁ tu savanīyānāṁ codanāviśeṣāt || 42 ||

But [as for] the meat (māṁsa) of the savanīya [offerings connected with the soma-pressing], because there is no distinction in the injunction (codanā).

भक्तिर् असन्निधावन्याय्येति चेत् ॥ ४३ ॥

bhaktir asannidhāv anyāyyeti cet || 43 ||

[Objection:] If it be said that the [ritual] portion (bhakti), in the absence of proximity (asannidhi), is improper (anyāyya) —

स्यात् प्रकृतिलिङ्गाद् वैराजवत् ॥ ४४ ॥

syāt prakṛtiliṅgād vairājavat || 44 ||

[Reply:] It would [still be proper], on the basis of the indicatory mark (liṅga) of the prakṛti (archetype rite), just as in the case of the vairāja [rite/sāman].

अथातः क्रत्वर्थपुरुषार्थयोर् जिज्ञासा

athātaḥ kratvarthapuruṣārthayor jijñāsā

Now, then, begins the inquiry (jijñāsā) into the distinction between kratvārtha (what is for the sake of the sacrificial rite, kratu) and puruṣārtha (what is for the sake of the sacrificer's own purpose).

यस्मिन् प्रीतिः पुरुषस्य तस्य लिप्सार्थलक्षणाविभक्तत्वात्

yasmin prītiḥ puruṣasya tasya lipsārthalakṣaṇāvibhaktatvāt

That in which the person (puruṣa) finds satisfaction (prīti) is puruṣārtha, since it is inseparable from the defining mark of being an object he seeks to obtain for himself (lipsārtha).

तदुत्सर्गे कर्माणि पुरुषार्थाय शास्त्रस्यानतिशङ्क्यत्वान् न च द्रव्यं चिकीर्ष्यते तेनार्थेनाभिसम्बन्धात् क्रियायां पुरुषश्रुतिः

tadutsarge karmāṇi puruṣārthāya śāstrasyānatiśaṅkyatvān na ca dravyaṁ cikīrṣyate tenārthenābhisambandhāt kriyāyāṁ puruṣaśrutiḥ

By default, acts are for the person's purpose (puruṣārtha), since scripture's plain statement is not to be doubted; and it is not the substance (dravya) that is thereby sought to be accomplished -- because, owing to connection with that personal purpose, the Vedic wording expressing 'the person' attaches to the action, not to the substance.

Note: Dense syntax; rendered per the standard construal that the kratvārtha/puruṣārtha default is settled by which element -- action or substance -- the agentive Vedic wording actually attaches to.

अविशेषात् तु शास्त्रस्य यथाश्रुति फलानि स्युः

aviśeṣāt tu śāstrasya yathāśruti phalāni syuḥ

But since scripture makes no further distinction here, the results (phalāni) would be exactly as stated (yathāśruti).

अपि वा कारणाग्रहणे तदर्थम् अर्थस्यानभिसम्बन्धात्

api vā kāraṇāgrahaṇe tadartham arthasyānabhisambandhāt

Or rather, when no separate reason is stated for a substance, it exists for the sake of that rite, since it has no independent purpose of its own connected elsewhere.

तथा च लोकभूतेषु

tathā ca lokabhūteṣu

And likewise also among things that occur in ordinary worldly use (loka-bhūta), the same principle applies.

द्रव्याणि त्व् अविशेषेणानर्थक्यात् प्रदीयेरन्

dravyāṇi tv aviśeṣeṇānarthakyāt pradīyeran

But the substances (dravyāṇi), since without such specification they would be purposeless (anarthakya), should simply be surrendered/offered up -- their whole purpose exhausted in being given.

स्वेन त्वर्थे न सम्बन्धो द्रव्याणां पृथगर्थत्वात् तस्माद् यथाश्रुति स्युः

svena tvarthe na sambandho dravyāṇāṁ pṛthagarthatvāt tasmād yathāśruti syuḥ

But the substances have no connection with a purpose of their own, since they serve another's purpose (pṛthagarthatva, i.e. the rite's); therefore they should be understood exactly as declared in scripture.

चोद्यन्ते चार्थकर्मसु

codyante cārthakarmasu

And they are enjoined in connection with acts that serve a [ritual] purpose (artha-karma), not a personal one.

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च

liṅgadarśanāc ca

And because indicatory marks (liṅga) confirming this are also observed in the Veda.

तत्रैकत्वमयज्ञाङ्गम् अर्थस्य गुणभूतत्वात्

tatraikatvamayajñāṅgam arthasya guṇabhūtatvāt

In that case, unity [of the act with the person's own purpose] is not treated as a limb (aṅga) of the sacrifice, since, were it so, the rite's own purpose would become merely subordinate (guṇabhūta) to the person's enjoyment.

एकश्रुतित्वाच् च

ekaśrutitvāc ca

And because it is expressed by a single Vedic mention (eka-śrutitva).

प्रतीयते इति चेत्

pratīyate iti cet

If it be objected: 'but it is nonetheless understood [to be so]' --

नाशब्दं तत्प्रमाणत्वात् पूर्ववत्

nāśabdaṁ tatpramāṇatvāt pūrvavat

[We reply:] Not so -- what is not stated in words carries no authority here, as already established earlier, since the [Vedic] word alone is the means of valid knowledge (pramāṇa) in this domain.

शब्दवत् तूपलभ्यते तदागमे हि तद्दृश्यते तस्य ज्ञानं हि यथान्येषाम्

śabdavat tūpalabhyate tadāgame hi taddṛśyate tasya jñānaṁ hi yathānyeṣām

But it is apprehended just like anything conveyed by a word, for it is seen [to arise] only upon the occurrence of that word; knowledge of it comes about just as it does for other things known through words.

तद्वच् च लिङ्गदर्शनम्

tadvac ca liṅgadarśanam

And the observation of an indicatory mark (liṅga) works the same way.

तथा च लिङ्गम्

tathā ca liṅgam

And such indeed is the indicatory mark here.

आश्रयिष्व् अविशेषेण भावोऽर्थः प्रतीयेत

āśrayiṣv aviśeṣeṇa bhāvo'rthaḥ pratīyeta

Among the ritual substrates (āśraya), without further distinction, the presence of a personal purpose would be understood.

चोदनायां त्व् अनारम्भोऽविभक्तत्वान् न ह्य् अन्येन विधीयते

codanāyāṁ tv anārambho'vibhaktatvān na hy anyena vidhīyate

But in the injunction (codanā) itself there is no separate undertaking of that purpose, since it is not distinct from the act enjoined; for it is not enjoined by any other statement.

स्याद् वा द्रव्यचिकीर्षायां भावोऽर्थे च गुणभूतताश्रयाद् धि गुणीभावः

syād vā dravyacikīrṣāyāṁ bhāvo'rthe ca guṇabhūtatāśrayād dhi guṇībhāvaḥ

Or rather, where it is the substance that is sought to be accomplished (dravya-cikīrṣā), the personal purpose's presence would only be subordinate (guṇabhūta), since it then rests on what is itself subordinate; hence it becomes a mere adjunct.

अर्थे समवैषम्यतो द्रव्यकर्मणाम्

arthe samavaiṣamyato dravyakarmaṇām

With regard to purpose, a question arises of equality or inequality (sama-vaiṣamya) among the substances and the acts performed with them.

एकनिष्पत्तेः सर्वे समं स्यात्

ekaniṣpatteḥ sarve samaṁ syāt

Since they all arise from a single production (eka-niṣpatti), all would be equal.

संसर्गरसनिष्पत्तेरामिक्षा वा प्रधानं स्यात्

saṁsargarasaniṣpatterāmikṣā vā pradhānaṁ syāt

Or rather, since it is the production of a combined essence (saṁsarga-rasa-niṣpatti) that is aimed at, the āmikṣā (a curdled-milk preparation) would be the principal (pradhāna) element, the rest being subordinate to producing it.

Note: Source reads 'निश्पत्तेः' with श where the expected word is 'निष्पत्तेः' (niṣpatti, 'production') -- a श/ष transcription confusion; corrected here as a mechanical fix.

मुख्यशब्दाभिसंस्तवाच् च

mukhyaśabdābhisaṁstavāc ca

And because it is extolled by its principal, primary name (mukhya-śabda).

पदकर्माप्रयोजकं नयनस्य परार्थत्वात्

padakarmāprayojakaṁ nayanasya parārthatvāt

The act denoted by the [relevant] word is not the motivating factor, since the conveying (nayana) it involves serves another's purpose (parārtha).

अर्थाभिधानकर्म च भविष्यता संयोगस्य तन्निमित्तत्वात् तदर्थो हि विधीयते

arthābhidhānakarma ca bhaviṣyatā saṁyogasya tannimittatvāt tadartho hi vidhīyate

And the act denoted for a [further] purpose is enjoined because the future connection it leads to is its very occasion; for it is enjoined precisely for that purpose.

पशाव् अनालम्भाल् लोहितशकृतोर् अकर्मत्वम्

paśāv anālambhāl lohitaśakṛtor akarmatvam

Since there is no [ritual] touching/immolation (ānalambha) directed at them in the animal, blood and dung (lohita-śakṛt) are not counted as part of the ritual act.

एकदेशद्रव्यश् चोत्पत्तौ वद्यमानसंयोगात्

ekadeśadravyaś cotpattau vadyamānasaṁyogāt

And, at the moment of production, that substance exists only as one part (eka-deśa) [of a larger whole], since its connection is stated only for the moment it is being cut off/divided (vadyamāna).

Note: Highly terse; the precise substance and rite referred to are not recoverable from the bare sutra without a commentary -- rendered per the plain grammatical construction only.

निर्देशात् तस्यान्यद् अर्थाद् इति चेत्

nirdeśāt tasyānyad arthād iti cet

If it be objected: 'by [this specific] designation, that is a thing other than [what is meant by] the stated purpose' --

न शेषसन्निधानात्

na śeṣasannidhānāt

[We reply:] No, because it stands as a subordinate remainder (śeṣa) in proximity to the principal.

कर्मकार्यात्

karmakāryāt

Because it is an effect of the ritual act (karma-kārya).

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च

liṅgadarśanāc ca

And because the indicatory mark (liṅga) is observed here too.

अभिघारणे विप्रकर्षाद् अनूयाजवत् पात्रभेदः स्यात्

abhighāraṇe viprakarṣād anūyājavat pātrabhedaḥ syāt

In the matter of the anointing/besprinkling (abhighāraṇa), because of the [spatial] separation involved, there would be a difference of vessel (pātra-bheda), just as in the case of the anuyāja (the secondary offerings following the principal oblation in a Soma rite).

न वा पात्रत्वाद् अपात्रत्वं त्व् एकदेशत्वात्

na vā pātratvād apātratvaṁ tv ekadeśatvāt

Or rather, not so -- there is no distinction of being or not being a vessel; the only question is of being a single part (eka-deśatva).

हेतुत्वाच् च सहप्रयोगस्य

hetutvāc ca sahaprayogasya

And because it is the reason for the joint use (saha-prayoga) [of the two].

अभावदर्शनाच् च

abhāvadarśanāc ca

And because the absence [of such a distinction] is also observed [elsewhere].

सति सव्यवचनम्

sati savyavacanam

When that reason is present, there is a specific accompanying statement (vyavacana).

Note: Extremely terse; rendered per the plain grammatical sense. The precise ritual referent is not recoverable from the bare sutra without a commentary.

न तस्येति चेत्

na tasyeti cet

If it be objected: 'that does not belong to it' --

स्यात् तस्य मुख्यत्वात्

syāt tasya mukhyatvāt

[We reply:] It would indeed belong to it, because it is the principal (mukhya) one.

समानयनं तु मुख्यं स्याल् लिङ्गदर्शनात्

samānayanaṁ tu mukhyaṁ syāl liṅgadarśanāt

But the bringing-together (samānayana) [into a common vessel] would be the principal act, since the confirming indicatory mark is observed.

वचने हि हेत्वसामर्थ्यम्

vacane hi hetvasāmarthyam

For in mere verbal statement there is an incapacity of the reason (hetu-asāmarthya) -- a bare statement alone cannot serve as sufficient ground.

तत्रोत्पत्तिर् अविभक्ता स्यात्

tatrotpattir avibhaktā syāt

There, the [act of] production (utpatti) would be undivided (avibhaktā), a single unseparated act.

तत्र जौहवम् अनूयाजप्रतिषेधार्थम्

tatra jauhavam anūyājapratiṣedhārtham

There, the rule concerning the jauhava [associated with the juhū ladle] serves to prohibit its extension to the anuyāja (post-offerings).

औपभृतं तथेति चेत्

aupabhṛtaṁ tatheti cet

If it be said: 'the aupabhṛta rule [concerning the upabhṛt ladle] is likewise [a prohibition]' --

स्याज् जुहूप्रतिषेधान् नित्यानुवादः

syāj juhūpratiṣedhān nityānuvādaḥ

[We reply:] It would instead be a standing restatement (nitya-anuvāda), by way of prohibiting its extension to the juhū.

तदष्टसङ्ख्यं श्रवणात्

tadaṣṭasaṅkhyaṁ śravaṇāt

That is of the number eight, since such is heard in scripture.

अनुग्रहाच् च जौहवस्य

anugrahāc ca jauhavasya

And because there is a reinforcement (anugraha) of the jauhava rule.

द्वयोस् तु हेतुसामर्थयं श्रवणं च समानयने

dvayos tu hetusāmarthayaṁ śravaṇaṁ ca samānayane

But regarding the two ladles together, with respect to the bringing-together (samānayana), both the capacity of the reason and a direct scriptural hearing are present.

स्वरुस् त्व् अनेकनिष्पत्तिः स्वकर्मशब्दत्वात्

svarus tv anekaniṣpattiḥ svakarmaśabdatvāt

But the svaru (a sacrificial wood-splinter) has multiple modes of production (aneka-niṣpatti), since it is denoted by a word expressing its own distinct ritual act.

जात्यन्तराच् च शङ्कते

jātyantarāc ca śaṅkate

And a doubt also arises on account of its possibly belonging to a different class (jāty-antara) [of ritual object].

तदेकदेशो वा स्वरुत्वस्य तन्निमित्तत्वात्

tadekadeśo vā svarutvasya tannimittatvāt

Or, it is merely a part (eka-deśa) of that [larger object, e.g. the sacrificial post], since that larger whole is itself the occasion for its being called svaru.

शकलश्रुतेश् च

śakalaśruteś ca

And because of the Vedic mention of a chip or fragment (śakala).

प्रतियूपं च दर्शनात्

pratiyūpaṁ ca darśanāt

And [it occurs] for each sacrificial post (prati-yūpa), since such is observed.

आदाने करोतिशब्दः

ādāne karotiśabdaḥ

In the act of taking up (ādāna), the word 'karoti' (he makes/performs) is used.

शाखायां तत्प्रधानत्वात्

śākhāyāṁ tatpradhānatvāt

This applies within [each] Vedic branch/recension (śākhā), because it is the principal rule there.

शाखायां तत्प्रधानत्वाद् उपवेषेण विभागः स्याद् वैषम्यं तत्

śākhāyāṁ tatpradhānatvād upaveṣeṇa vibhāgaḥ syād vaiṣamyaṁ tat

Because it is the principal rule within [each] branch, there would be a division by sub-portion (upaveṣa); that constitutes an inequality (vaiṣamya).

श्रुत्यपायाच् च

śrutyapāyāc ca

And because, in some branches, the direct Vedic statement (śruti) is found lacking.

हरणे तु जुहोतिर् योगसामान्याद् द्रव्याणां चार्थशेषत्वात्

haraṇe tu juhotir yogasāmānyād dravyāṇāṁ cārthaśeṣatvāt

But at the occasion of carrying/offering (haraṇa), the word 'juhoti' (he offers) is used, on account of the general applicability of the verbal connection, and because the substances are subordinate remainders (artha-śeṣa) to that purpose.

प्रतिपत्तिर् वा शब्दस्य तत्प्रधानत्वात्

pratipattir vā śabdasya tatpradhānatvāt

Or, the understanding (pratipatti) conveyed by the word governs, since that is the principal factor here.

अर्थेऽपि चेत्

arthe'pi cet

If it be asked whether this applies even with regard to the [ritual] purpose (artha) --

न तस्यानधिकाराद् अर्थस्य च कृतत्वात्

na tasyānadhikārād arthasya ca kṛtatvāt

[We reply:] No, because it has no independent entitlement (anadhikāra), and the purpose is already accomplished (kṛtatva).

उत्पत्त्यसंयोगात् प्रणीतानाम् आज्यवद् विभागः स्यात्

utpattyasaṁyogāt praṇītānām ājyavad vibhāgaḥ syāt

Since there is no connection at the moment of production, there would be a division among the praṇīta waters [ritually consecrated for use], just as with the clarified butter (ājya).

संयवनार्थानां वा प्रतिपत्तिर् इतरासां तत्प्रधानत्वात्

saṁyavanārthānāṁ vā pratipattir itarāsāṁ tatpradhānatvāt

Or rather, for waters meant for mixing (saṁyavana-artha), there is only cognition [via the word], while for the others that mixing purpose is itself the principal consideration.

प्रासनवन् मैत्रावरुणस्य दण्डप्रदानं कृतार्थत्वात्

prāsanavan maitrāvaruṇasya daṇḍapradānaṁ kṛtārthatvāt

Like the act of eating (prāśana), the giving of the staff (daṇḍa-pradāna) belongs to the Maitrāvaruṇa priest, since its purpose is already accomplished (kṛtārthatva).

अर्थकर्म वा कर्तृसंयोगात् स्रग्वत्

arthakarma vā kartṛsaṁyogāt sragvat

Or, it is an act with an [ulterior] purpose (artha-karma), on account of its connection with the agent (kartṛ), like a garland.

कर्मयुक्ते च दर्शनात्

karmayukte ca darśanāt

And this holds where it is joined with an independent act, since it is so observed.

उत्पत्तौ येन संयुक्तं तदर्थं तच्छ्रुतिहेतुत्वात् तस्यार्थान्तरगमने शेषत्वात् प्रतिपत्तिः स्यात्

utpattau yena saṁyuktaṁ tadarthaṁ tacchrutihetutvāt tasyārthāntaragamane śeṣatvāt pratipattiḥ syāt

That with which a thing is connected at the moment of production is its purpose, because that connection is the very reason for its being mentioned in scripture; when it passes to a different purpose, being then only a subordinate remainder (śeṣa), there would be mere cognition via the word, not an independent injunction.

सौमिके च कृतार्थत्वात्

saumike ca kṛtārthatvāt

And in the Soma sacrifice, because its purpose is already accomplished.

अर्थकर्म वाभिधानसंयोगात्

arthakarma vābhidhānasaṁyogāt

Or, it is an act with ulterior purpose, on account of its connection with the [verbal] designation (abhidhāna).

प्रतिपत्तिर् वा तन्न्यायत्वाद् देशार्थावभृथश्रुतिः

pratipattir vā tannyāyatvād deśārthāvabhṛthaśrutiḥ

Or, it is mere cognition (pratipatti), since that is the governing principle here; the mention of place is for the purpose of the avabhṛtha (the concluding purificatory bath).

कर्तृदेशकालानाम् अचोदनं प्रयोगे नित्यसमवायात्

kartṛdeśakālānām acodanaṁ prayoge nityasamavāyāt

There is no separate injunction of the agent, place, and time, since in ritual application they are constantly, inherently associated (nitya-samavāya) with the act.

नियमार्था वा श्रुतिः

niyamārthā vā śrutiḥ

Or, the [Vedic] mention serves the purpose of a restriction (niyama), narrowing an otherwise general option.

तथा द्रव्येषु गुणश्रुतिर् उत्पत्तिसंयोगात्

tathā dravyeṣu guṇaśrutir utpattisaṁyogāt

Likewise, among substances, the mention of a subordinate quality (guṇa-śruti) is on account of its connection at the moment of production.

Note: In the Wikisource source, this sutra's citation marker is printed as '-४,२.१५' (4,2.15), duplicating the citation already correctly used by the earlier sutra 'संयवनार्थानां वा प्रतिपत्तिः...' at the true 4.2.15, and appearing out of sequence between sutras printed 4.2.24 and 4.2.26. This is a transcription/digit misprint (likely 25 misread or mistyped as 15); resolved by structural position as sutra 4.2.25, per this project's established policy of clean sequential position-numbering as ground truth when the source's own printed numbers conflict.

संस्कारे च तत्प्रधानत्वात्

saṁskāre ca tatpradhānatvāt

And in the case of a purificatory rite (saṁskāra), because that is the principal consideration there.

यजति चोदनाद्रव्यदेवताक्रियं समुदाये कृतार्थत्वात्

yajati codanādravyadevatākriyaṁ samudāye kṛtārthatvāt

'Yajati' (he sacrifices) enjoins substance, deity, and action (dravya-devatā-kriyā) together as a combination, since its purpose is accomplished only in their joint occurrence.

तदुक्ते श्रवणाज् जुहोतिर् आसेचनाधिकः स्यात्

tadukte śravaṇāj juhotir āsecanādhikaḥ syāt

Since this is also heard [stated elsewhere], 'juhoti' (he pours/offers) would additionally convey the sense of pouring/sprinkling (āsecana).

विधेः कर्मापवर्गित्वाद् अर्थान्तरे विधिप्रदेशः स्यात्

vidheḥ karmāpavargitvād arthāntare vidhipradeśaḥ syāt

Since the injunction has the ritual act as its terminus (karma-apavarga), with regard to a further, different purpose there would be an additional, separate pointing of injunction (vidhi-pradeśa).

अपि वोत्पत्तिसंयोगाद् अर्थसम्बन्धोऽविशिष्टानां प्रयोगैकत्वहेतुः स्यात्

api votpattisaṁyogād arthasambandho'viśiṣṭānāṁ prayogaikatvahetuḥ syāt

Or rather, on account of connection at the moment of production, the shared relation to a purpose among things not otherwise distinguished would itself be the reason for the unity of their ritual application.

द्रव्यसंस्कारकर्मसु परार्थत्वात् फलश्रुतिर् अर्थवादः स्यात्

dravyasaṁskārakarmasu parārthatvāt phalaśrutir arthavādaḥ syāt

Since substance, purificatory rite, and act (dravya-saṁskāra-karma) all exist for another's purpose (namely the sacrifice's), a mention of a [personal] fruit attached to them would be mere arthavāda -- an explanatory or eulogistic statement, not an independent injunction.

Note: This closing sutra of Pada 2 introduces 'arthavāda' as a formal technical term, launching the sustained inquiry into fruit-statements and explanatory passages that occupies the whole of Pada 3.

उत्पत्तेश् चातत्प्रधानत्वात्

utpatteś cātatpradhānatvāt

And because, at the moment of production, that fruit is not the principal element -- i.e. not the injunction's primary aim.

Note: This is the first sutra recovered from this pre-extracted Wikisource text for Pada 3 (printed citation 4,3.2); the source's citation markers for this pada run 4,3.2 through 4,3.41 (40 sutras total) with no 4,3.1 present anywhere in the fetched wikitext -- a genuine, confirmed gap (the pre-extraction's own total of 160 citations for the whole adhyaya already excludes it), not a fetch error. Per the task's instruction to use citation markers as ground-truth numbering, Pada 3's sutras are numbered 2-41 here rather than renumbered to 1-40, so canonical_ref values continue to match standard printed editions; the lost sutra 4.3.1 is not reconstructed or invented.

फलं तु तत्प्रधानायाम्

phalaṁ tu tatpradhānāyām

But the fruit is the principal element in that injunction where the fruit itself is the primary aim.

नैमित्तिके विकारत्वात् क्रतुप्रधानम् अन्यत् स्यात्

naimittike vikāratvāt kratupradhānam anyat syāt

In an occasional rite (naimittika, one performed on a special occasion), since it is a modification (vikāra) of a model rite, it is the other element -- the sacrifice (kratu) itself -- that would be principal.

एकस्य तूभयत्वे संयोगपृथक्त्वम्

ekasya tūbhayatve saṁyogapṛthaktvam

But when a single act has both characters [kratvārtha and puruṣārtha at once], a separateness of connection (saṁyoga-pṛthaktva) is to be recognized between its two aspects.

शेष इति चेत्

śeṣa iti cet

If it be said: 'it is [merely] a subordinate remainder (śeṣa)' --

नार्थपृथक्त्वात्

nārthapṛthaktvāt

[We reply:] No, because its purpose is [genuinely] separate.

द्रव्याणान्तु क्रियार्थानां संस्कारः क्रतुधर्मस्यात्

dravyāṇāntu kriyārthānāṁ saṁskāraḥ kratudharmasyāt

But for substances whose purpose is only the ritual action itself, their purificatory rite (saṁskāra) would be a property of the sacrifice as a whole.

पृथक्त्वाद्व्यवतिष्ठेत

pṛthaktvādvyavatiṣṭheta

Because of that separateness, it would stand as independently established.

चोदनायां फलाश्रुतेः कर्ममात्रं विधीयेत न ह्य् अशब्दं प्रतीयते

codanāyāṁ phalāśruteḥ karmamātraṁ vidhīyeta na hy aśabdaṁ pratīyate

In an injunction where no fruit is mentioned, the ritual act alone would be enjoined; for what is not expressed in words is not thereby understood.

अपि वाम्नानसामथर्थ्याच् चोदनार्थेन गम्येतार्थानां ह्य् अर्थत्वेन वचनानि प्रतीयन्तेऽर्थतोप्य् असमर्थानाम् आनन्तर्येऽप्य् असम्बन्धस् तस्माच् छ्रुत्येकदेशः सः

api vāmnānasāmatharthyāc codanārthena gamyetārthānāṁ hy arthatvena vacanāni pratīyante'rthatopy asamarthānām ānantarye'py asambandhas tasmāc chrutyekadeśaḥ saḥ

Or rather, since mere recitation cannot stand as an independent ground of meaning, a fruit-statement is understood only in connection with the sense of the injunction itself; for statements convey purpose precisely by virtue of conveying meaning -- and where they are incapable of independent meaning, mere immediate sequence (ānantarya) does not establish a connection either. Therefore such a fruit-statement is only a part of the surrounding Vedic text (śruty-eka-deśa), not an independent injunction.

Note: Long, syntactically dense sutra, a classic instance of Mimamsa's terse dialectical style; rendered per the standard interpretation that a fruit-statement lacking independent syntactic connection to a verb of injunction cannot itself constitute an independent vidhi.

वाक्यार्थश् च गुणार्थवत्

vākyārthaś ca guṇārthavat

And the meaning of the sentence (vākyārtha) is comparable to a subordinate, qualifying element (guṇārtha).

तत्सर्वार्थम् अनादेशात्

tatsarvārtham anādeśāt

That is for the sake of the sentence as a whole, since there is no separate designation [singling out a part of it].

एकं वा चोदनैकत्वात्

ekaṁ vā codanaikatvāt

Or, it is a single statement, because the injunction (codanā) itself is one.

स स्वर्गः स्यात् सर्वान् प्रत्यविशिष्टत्वात्

sa svargaḥ syāt sarvān pratyaviśiṣṭatvāt

That would be heaven (svarga), since it applies equally, undifferentiated, to all persons.

प्रत्ययाच् च

pratyayāc ca

And because such a conviction is also [commonly] held.

क्रतौ फलार्थवादमङ्गवत् कार्ष्णाजिनिः

kratau phalārthavādamaṅgavat kārṣṇājiniḥ

In the view of Kārṣṇājini [a named authority whose opinion is cited], the fruit-arthavāda -- the eulogistic passage praising the fruit -- functions in the sacrifice like a subsidiary limb, not as an independent element.

फलमात्रेयो निर्देशाद् अश्रुतौ ह्य् अनुमानं स्यात्

phalamātreyo nirdeśād aśrutau hy anumānaṁ syāt

In the view of Ātreya [another named authority], it concerns the fruit primarily, on account of its specific designation; for where the connection is not directly heard in scripture, it would rest on inference (anumāna).

अङ्गेषु स्तुतिः परार्थत्वात्

aṅgeṣu stutiḥ parārthatvāt

Among the subsidiary limbs (aṅga), it is mere praise (stuti), since it exists for the sake of another, the principal rite.

काम्ये कर्मणि नित्यः स्वर्गे यथा यज्ञाङ्गे क्रत्वर्थः

kāmye karmaṇi nityaḥ svarge yathā yajñāṅge kratvarthaḥ

In an optional, desire-motivated act (kāmya karma), the fruit is constant with regard to heaven, just as, for a limb of the sacrifice, being kratvārtha (for the rite's own sake) is constant.

वीते च कारणे नियमात्

vīte ca kāraṇe niyamāt

And even when the [personal] motive is absent, the fruit-statement still stands, by virtue of restriction (niyama).

कामो वा तत्संयोगेन चोद्यते

kāmo vā tatsaṁyogena codyate

Or, it is desire (kāma) itself that is really enjoined, by its connection with that fruit.

अङ्गेषु स्तुतिः परार्थत्वात्

aṅgeṣu stutiḥ parārthatvāt

Among the subsidiary limbs, it is mere praise, since it exists for the sake of another.

Note: Verbatim identical to sutra 4.3.19 above; both are attested in this Wikisource transcription at their respective citation positions -- read as a genuine rhetorical restatement bridging two stages of the argument, not corrected or merged.

वीते च नियमस् तदर्थम्

vīte ca niyamas tadartham

And even when the motive is absent, the restriction serves that same purpose.

सर्वकाम्यम् अङ्गकामैः प्रकरणात्

sarvakāmyam aṅgakāmaiḥ prakaraṇāt

On account of its topical context alongside rites performed for the sake of desiring the [subsidiary] limbs themselves, it would be treated as entirely optional (kāmya).

फलोपदेशो वा प्रधानशब्दसंयोगात्

phalopadeśo vā pradhānaśabdasaṁyogāt

Or, on account of its connection with the principal word, it is a genuine teaching of the fruit (phala-upadeśa).

तत्र सर्वेऽविशेषात्

tatra sarve'viśeṣāt

There, since no further distinction applies, all would apply equally.

योगसिद्धिर् वार्थस्योत्पत्यसंयोगित्वात्

yogasiddhir vārthasyotpatyasaṁyogitvāt

Or, it is established through verbal connection (yoga), since that purpose is not [directly] connected at the moment of production.

समवाये चोदनासंयोगस्यार्थवत्वात्

samavāye codanāsaṁyogasyārthavatvāt

In a case of such inherent combination (samavāya), this holds because the injunction's connection [with the fruit] has genuine meaning (arthavattva).

कालश्रुतौ काल इति चेत्

kālaśrutau kāla iti cet

If it be said: 'where time is mentioned in scripture, the fruit belongs to the time itself' --

नासमवायात्प्रयोजनेन

nāsamavāyātprayojanena

[We reply:] No, because, from the standpoint of purpose, there is no inherent connection (asamavāya) with time.

उभयार्थाम् इति चेत्

ubhayārthām iti cet

If it be said: 'the mention serves both purposes at once' --

न शब्दैकत्वात्

na śabdaikatvāt

[We reply:] No, because the word is one and the same.

प्रकरणाद् इति चेत्

prakaraṇād iti cet

If it be said: 'this follows from the [topical] context (prakaraṇa)' --

नोत्पत्तिसंयोगात्

notpattisaṁyogāt

[We reply:] No, because a connection exists at the moment of production.

अनुत्पत्तौ तु कालः स्यात् प्रयोजनेन सम्बन्धात्

anutpattau tu kālaḥ syāt prayojanena sambandhāt

But where no such connection at production exists, time would govern the matter, on account of its relation with the [ritual] purpose.

उत्पत्तिकालविशये कालः स्याद् वाक्यस्य तत्प्रधानत्वात्

utpattikālaviśaye kālaḥ syād vākyasya tatpradhānatvāt

In a case of doubt about the time of production, time itself would govern, since that is the sentence's own principal element.

Note: Source reads 'उतपत्तिकालविशये' with a dropped virama, which as written would give the unrelated prefix 'उत' rather than the 'उत्पत्ति' (production) required by context and by parallel phrasing elsewhere in this pada (4.3.28, 4.3.35, 4.3.36); corrected to 'उत्पत्तिकालविशये' here as a transcription-artifact fix.

फलसंयोगस् त्व् अचोदिते न स्याद् अशेषभूतत्वात्

phalasaṁyogas tv acodite na syād aśeṣabhūtatvāt

But the connection with the fruit would not hold for an act not [directly] enjoined, since it is then not a subordinate remainder.

अङ्गानां तूपघातसंयोगो निमित्तार्थः

aṅgānāṁ tūpaghātasaṁyogo nimittārthaḥ

But for the subsidiary limbs, a connection with impairment/injury (upaghāta) has only an occasional purpose (nimitta).

प्रधानेनाभिसंयोगाद् अङ्गानां मुख्यकालत्वम्

pradhānenābhisaṁyogād aṅgānāṁ mukhyakālatvam

On account of their connection with the principal rite, the subsidiaries share its same principal time.

अपवृत्ते तु चोदना तत्सामान्यात् स्वकाले स्यात्

apavṛtte tu codanā tatsāmānyāt svakāle syāt

But when the principal rite has concluded (apavṛtta), the injunction, by virtue of its own generality, would apply at its own independent time.

प्रकरणाविभागे च विप्रतिषिद्धं ह्य् उभयम्

prakaraṇāvibhāge ca vipratiṣiddhaṁ hy ubhayam

And where the topical context (prakaraṇa) admits no division, both alternatives are indeed mutually contradictory.

अपि वाङ्गमनिज्याः स्युस् ततो विशिष्टत्वात्

api vāṅgamanijyāḥ syus tato viśiṣṭatvāt

Or rather, they would be an-ijyā limbs -- subsidiary elements rather than independent sacrificial acts -- since they are distinguished from that principal rite.

मध्यस्थं यस्य तन्मध्ये

madhyasthaṁ yasya tanmadhye

What stands in the middle [of a given set] remains situated (madhyastha) in the midst of that very set.

सर्वासां वा समत्वाच् चोदनातः स्यान् न हि तस्य प्रकरणं देशार्थम् उच्यते मध्ये

sarvāsāṁ vā samatvāc codanātaḥ syān na hi tasya prakaraṇaṁ deśārtham ucyate madhye

Or rather, because of the equal standing of all [elements concerned], it would follow from the injunction itself; for its topical context, in the middle [of the discussion], is not said to serve merely to fix a place.

प्रकरणाविभागे च विप्रतिषिद्धं ह्य् उभयम्

prakaraṇāvibhāge ca vipratiṣiddhaṁ hy ubhayam

And where the topical context admits no division, both alternatives are indeed mutually contradictory.

Note: Verbatim identical, word for word, to sutra 4.4.1 above -- both are attested in this Wikisource transcription at their own distinct citation positions (4,4.1 and 4,4.5). Kept as a genuine repeated refrain rather than merged or treated as a duplication error, on the model of this project's Brahma Sutra build, which documented an analogous deliberate verbatim repetition (its closing sutra, anāvṛttiḥ śabdād anāvṛttiḥ śabdāt) as a recognized rhetorical device in this genre, here marking the return to the unresolved point after the intervening alternatives of sutras 4.4.2-4.4.4 have been considered.

अपि वा कालमात्रं स्याद् अदर्शनाद् विशेशस्य

api vā kālamātraṁ syād adarśanād viśeśasya

Or rather, it would be a matter of time alone, since no further distinction is observed.

फलवद् वोक्तहेतुत्वाद् इतरस्य प्रधानं स्यात्

phalavad voktahetutvād itarasya pradhānaṁ syāt

Or, since one [element] has a stated reason connecting it to the fruit, the other would be the principal element.

दधिग्रहो नैमित्तिकः श्रुतिसंयोगात्

dadhigraho naimittikaḥ śrutisaṁyogāt

The dadhigraha (the curd-cup offering) is occasional (naimittika), on account of its connection with a specific occasioning Vedic text.

नित्यश् च ज्येष्ठशब्दात्

nityaś ca jyeṣṭhaśabdāt

And yet it is also constant (nitya), on account of the word 'eldest/foremost' (jyeṣṭha) used of it.

सार्वरूप्याच् च

sārvarūpyāc ca

And also on account of its uniformity of form across occasions (sārvarūpya).

नित्यो वा स्याद् अर्थवादस्तयोः कर्मण्य् असम्बन्धाद् भङ्गित्वाच् चान्तरायस्य

nityo vā syād arthavādastayoḥ karmaṇy asambandhād bhaṅgitvāc cāntarāyasya

Or, that statement would be mere arthavāda regarding the constant rite, since neither of the two [readings] has a necessary connection with that particular occasion, and an intervening obstacle (antarāya) is only an incidental interruption, not a change of the rite's own nature.

वैश्वानरश् च नित्यः स्यान् नित्यैः समानसङ्ख्यत्वात्

vaiśvānaraś ca nityaḥ syān nityaiḥ samānasaṅkhyatvāt

And the Vaiśvānara [rite] would be constant, since its number matches that of the [other] constant rites.

पक्षे वोत्पन्नसंयोगात्

pakṣe votpannasaṁyogāt

Or, on account of a connection that arises within a [particular lunar] fortnight (pakṣa).

षट्चितिः पूर्ववत्त्वात्

ṣaṭcitiḥ pūrvavattvāt

The ṣaṭciti (the six-layered fire-altar) is constant, on the principle of conforming to what has gone before (pūrvavattva).

ताभिश् च तुल्यसंख्यानात्

tābhiś ca tulyasaṁkhyānāt

And also on account of being counted equally in number with those [other] constant rites.

अर्थवादोपपत्तेश् च

arthavādopapatteś ca

And also on account of its fitness/coherence when read as arthavāda.

एकचितिर् वा स्याद् अपवृक्ते हि चोद्यते निमित्तेन

ekacitir vā syād apavṛkte hi codyate nimittena

Or, there would be a single-layered altar (eka-citi), since, on a concluded occasion, it is enjoined only on account of a special occasion (nimitta), not as a constant rule.

विप्रतिषेधात् ताभिः समानसङ्ख्यत्वम्

vipratiṣedhāt tābhiḥ samānasaṅkhyatvam

Because of the [otherwise resulting] contradiction, its number is held to match that of those constant rites.

पितृयज्ञः स्वकालत्वाद् अनङ्गं स्यात्

pitṛyajñaḥ svakālatvād anaṅgaṁ syāt

The pitṛyajña (the ancestor-sacrifice), since it has its own independent time, would not be a subsidiary limb of any other rite.

तुल्यवच् च प्रसङ्ख्यानात्

tulyavac ca prasaṅkhyānāt

And also because it is of equal standing [with those constant rites], and is separately enumerated (prasaṅkhyāna).

प्रतिषिद्धे च दर्शनात्

pratiṣiddhe ca darśanāt

And where it is prohibited, this too is observed to hold.

पश्वङ्ग रशमा स्यात् तदागमे विधानात्

paśvaṅga raśamā syāt tadāgame vidhānāt

The raśanā (girdle-cord) would be a limb of the animal-sacrifice (paśvaṅga), since it is enjoined only on the occasion of that rite's occurrence.

यूपाङ्गं वा तत्संस्कारात्

yūpāṅgaṁ vā tatsaṁskārāt

Or, on account of that sacrificial post's (yūpa's) own preparatory rite, it is a limb of the yūpa instead.

अर्थवादश् च तदर्थवत्

arthavādaś ca tadarthavat

And the corresponding [praise] statement is arthavāda serving that same purport.

स्वरुश्चाप्य् एकदेशत्वात्

svaruścāpy ekadeśatvāt

And the svaru too, being merely a part (eka-deśa) of the yūpa, likewise counts as a limb of the yūpa.

निष्क्रयश् च तदङ्गवत्

niṣkrayaś ca tadaṅgavat

And the niṣkraya (the redemption-payment) also functions in the manner of a limb of that same [rite].

पश्वङ्गं वार्थकर्मत्वात्

paśvaṅgaṁ vārthakarmatvāt

Or, being an act with its own [ulterior] purpose, it is a limb of the animal-sacrifice instead.

भक्त्या निष्क्रयवादः स्यात्

bhaktyā niṣkrayavādaḥ syāt

It is only by a secondary, figurative usage (bhakti) that it is spoken of as niṣkraya, a 'statement of redemption'.

दर्शपूर्णमासयोर् इज्याः प्रधानान्य् अविशेषात्

darśapūrṇamāsayor ijyāḥ pradhānāny aviśeṣāt

In the Darśa and Pūrṇamāsa [the new-moon and full-moon sacrifices], all the offerings (ijyāḥ) are principal, there being no further distinction among them.

अपि वाङ्गानि कानि चिद्येश्वङ्गत्वेन संस्तुतिः सामान्यो ह्य् अभिसंस्तवः

api vāṅgāni kāni cidyeśvaṅgatvena saṁstutiḥ sāmānyo hy abhisaṁstavaḥ

Or rather, some are merely subsidiary limbs, since their praise is offered by virtue of their being a limb of the sacrifice as a whole; for that extolling is of a general kind, not specific to any one offering.

तथा चान्यार्थदर्शनम्

tathā cānyārthadarśanam

And accordingly, such praise is also observed to serve another's purpose.

अवशिष्टं तु कारणं प्रधानेषु गुणस्य विद्यमानत्वात्

avaśiṣṭaṁ tu kāraṇaṁ pradhāneṣu guṇasya vidyamānatvāt

But what remains is the cause -- the model rite -- since the quality in question already exists among the principal elements.

नानुक्तेऽन्यार्थदर्शनं परार्थत्वात्

nānukte'nyārthadarśanaṁ parārthatvāt

Where it is not explicitly stated, being observed to serve another's purpose does not apply, since it serves another's purpose only in the case actually stated.

पृथवत्वे त्व् अभिधानयोर् निवेशः श्रुतितो व्यपदेशाच् च तत्पुनर्मुख्यलक्षणं यत्फलवत्वं तत्सन्निधाव् असंयुक्तं तदङ्गंस्याद्भागित्वात् कारणस्याश्रुतश् चान्यसम्बन्धः

pṛthavatve tv abhidhānayor niveśaḥ śrutito vyapadeśāc ca tatpunarmukhyalakṣaṇaṁ yatphalavatvaṁ tatsannidhāv asaṁyuktaṁ tadaṅgaṁsyādbhāgitvāt kāraṇasyāśrutaś cānyasambandhaḥ

But where the two elements are separate, both designations are established -- both by direct wording and by indirect reference; and again, that principal characteristic which is 'having a fruit' -- if something stands unconnected in proximity to it, it would, being a mere portion, count only as a subsidiary limb; whereas the cause, the model rite, has a connection with something else even where that connection is not directly stated in words.

Note: Extremely dense compound sutra, likely the most syntactically compressed in this pada. The Sanskrit also reads 'पृथवत्वे', where context and parallels elsewhere in this pada (compare 4.3.9 'पृथक्त्वाद्व्यवतिष्ठेत') strongly suggest the intended word is 'पृथक्त्वे' (pṛthaktve, 'in separateness') with a dropped or transposed consonant -- 'पृथवत्वे' is not a standard Sanskrit form. The 'sanskrit' field preserves the Wikisource transcription verbatim, as instructed for uncertain readings, while the translation follows the contextually indicated 'pṛthaktve' sense.

गुणाश् च नामसंयुक्ता विधीयन्ते नाङ्गेषूषपद्यन्ते

guṇāś ca nāmasaṁyuktā vidhīyante nāṅgeṣūṣapadyante

And subordinate qualities are enjoined only when connected by [explicit] name; they do not apply among the general limbs otherwise.

तुल्या च कारणश्रुतिर् अन्यैर् अङ्गाङ्गिसम्बन्धः

tulyā ca kāraṇaśrutir anyair aṅgāṅgisambandhaḥ

And the mention of the cause -- the model rite -- is equally valid; the relation of limb to whole is established by other factors.

उत्पत्ताव् अभिसम्बन्धस् तस्माद् अङ्गोपदेशः स्यात्

utpattāv abhisambandhas tasmād aṅgopadeśaḥ syāt

At the moment of production there is a direct connection; therefore it would constitute a teaching about a subsidiary limb.

तथा चान्यार्थदर्शनम्

tathā cānyārthadarśanam

And accordingly, this too is observed to serve another's purpose.

ज्योतिष्टोमे तुल्यान्य् अविशिष्टं हि कारणम्

jyotiṣṭome tulyāny aviśiṣṭaṁ hi kāraṇam

In the Jyotiṣṭoma [sacrifice], the elements stand equal, for the model rite (kāraṇa) is undifferentiated.

गुणानां तूत्पत्तिवाक्येन सम्बन्धात् कारणश्रुतिस् तस्मात् सोमः प्रधानं स्यात्

guṇānāṁ tūtpattivākyena sambandhāt kāraṇaśrutis tasmāt somaḥ pradhānaṁ syāt

But since the [subordinate] qualities are connected through the production-sentence, that mention is really of the cause, the model rite; therefore Soma would be the principal element.

तथा चान्यार्थदर्शनम्

tathā cānyārthadarśanam

And accordingly, this too is observed to serve another's purpose.

Note: This closing sutra of Adhyaya 4 is worded identically to sutras 4.4.31 and 4.4.38 above -- a recurring refrain that closes the guṇa/pradhāna (subordinate/principal) analysis by appeal to parallel cases considered earlier in this pada.

श्रुतिलक्षणम् आनुपूर्व्यं तत्प्रमाणत्वात् ॥ १ ॥

śrutilakṣaṇam ānupūrvyaṁ tatpramāṇatvāt || 1 ||

The order (ānupūrvya, sequence) [of ritual acts] is marked by śruti — the very sequence in which the Vedic text mentions them — because that wording is itself the authoritative means of knowledge (pramāṇa) for such order.

अर्थाच् च ॥ २ ॥

arthāc ca || 2 ||

And also by artha — the inherent purpose of the acts, which likewise indicates their proper sequence.

अनियमोऽन्यत्र ॥ ३ ॥

aniyamo'nyatra || 3 ||

Elsewhere [where neither the text's own order nor its purpose specifically indicates a sequence], there is no fixed rule of order.

क्रमेण वा नियम्येत क्रत्वेकत्वे तद्गुणत्वात् ॥ ४ ॥

krameṇa vā niyamyeta kratvekatve tadguṇatvāt || 4 ||

Or, when the sacrificial rite (kratu) is a single one, the order is fixed, since each act is subordinate (guṇa) to that one rite.

अशाब्द इति चेत् स्याद् वाक्यशब्दत्वात् ॥ ५ ॥

aśābda iti cet syād vākyaśabdatvāt || 5 ||

Objection: this fixed order is not derived from words at all. Reply: not so — it belongs to the very nature of the sentence's (vākya) own wording.

अर्थकृते वानुमानं स्यात् क्रत्वेकत्वे परार्थत्वात् स्वेन त्व् अर्थेन सम्बन्धस् तस्मात् स्वशब्दम् उच्येत ॥ ६ ॥

arthakṛte vānumānaṁ syāt kratvekatve parārthatvāt svena tv arthena sambandhas tasmāt svaśabdam ucyeta || 6 ||

Or, order determined for the sake of purpose (artha) might seem to be known only by inference, since each auxiliary serves another's (parārtha, the main rite's) purpose when the rite is single. But the connection through its own particular purpose is made by the act itself; therefore that connection should be understood through its own word (svaśabda), not by inference alone.

तथा चान्यार्थदर्शनम् ॥ ७ ॥

tathā cānyārthadarśanam || 7 ||

And accordingly, instances are indeed observed where an auxiliary act serves another's (the principal rite's) purpose.

प्रवृत्या तुल्यकालानां गुणानां तदुपक्रमात् ॥ ८ ॥

pravṛtyā tulyakālānāṁ guṇānāṁ tadupakramāt || 8 ||

For auxiliary acts (guṇa) that by their own operation (pravṛtti) fall at the same time, their order is determined by the commencement (upakrama) of the principal act they serve.

सर्वम् इति चेत् ॥ ९ ॥

sarvam iti cet || 9 ||

Objection: if order follows only from commencement, 'all [such acts] would [collapse into being] simultaneous.'

नाकृतत्वात् ॥ १० ॥

nākṛtatvāt || 10 ||

Not so — because each act, before its turn, remains as yet unperformed (akṛta).

क्रत्वन्तरवद् इति चेत् ॥ ११ ॥

kratvantaravad iti cet || 11 ||

Objection: 'it should be simultaneous, as in the case of a different rite (kratvantara) [where such acts are indeed held to occur together].'

नासमवायात् ॥ १२ ॥

nāsamavāyāt || 12 ||

Not so — because there is no [necessary] inherence (samavāya) linking that case to this one.

स्थानाच् चोत्पत्तिसंयोगात् ॥ १३ ॥

sthānāc cotpattisaṁyogāt || 13 ||

And also because each act's arising (utpatti) is connected with its own proper place (sthāna) in the rite.

मुख्यक्रमेण वाङ्गानां तदर्थत्वात् ॥ १४ ॥

mukhyakrameṇa vāṅgānāṁ tadarthatvāt || 14 ||

Or, the order of the subordinate members (aṅga, auxiliary rites) follows the order of the principal (mukhya) acts, since the auxiliaries exist for the sake of those principal acts.

प्रकृतौ तु स्वशब्दत्वाद्याक्रमं प्रतीयेत ॥ १५ ॥

prakṛtau tu svaśabdatvādyākramaṁ pratīyeta || 15 ||

But in the archetype rite (prakṛti, the model a modified rite is patterned on), whatever order is directly understood rests on that rite's own wording (svaśabda).

मन्त्रतस् तु विरोधे स्यात् प्रयोगरूपसामर्थ्यात् तस्माद् उत्पत्तिदेशः सः ॥ १६ ॥

mantratas tu virodhe syāt prayogarūpasāmarthyāt tasmād utpattideśaḥ saḥ || 16 ||

But in case of conflict, the order derived from the mantra (the Vedic verse used in the rite) prevails, owing to the force inherent in its very form of application (prayoga); therefore that place indicated by the mantra is the act's true place of origination.

तद्वचनाद् विकृतौ यथा प्रधानं स्यात् ॥ १७ ॥

tadvacanād vikṛtau yathā pradhānaṁ syāt || 17 ||

By that statement, in the modified rite (vikṛti, a derivative sacrifice patterned on a model), the order would be just as in the model rite.

विप्रतिपत्तौ वा प्रकृत्यन्वयाद् यथाप्रकृति ॥ १८ ॥

vipratipattau vā prakṛtyanvayād yathāprakṛti || 18 ||

Or, where there is disagreement about the order in the modified rite, it is settled by its connection to the archetype (prakṛti) — the order simply follows the archetype.

विकृतिः प्रकृतिधर्मत्वात् तत्काला स्याद् यथा शिष्टम् ॥ १९ ॥

vikṛtiḥ prakṛtidharmatvāt tatkālā syād yathā śiṣṭam || 19 ||

The modified rite, since it takes on the properties (dharma) of the archetype, occurs at the same time as the archetype, just as taught for the model.

अपि वा क्रमकालसंयुक्ता सद्यः क्रियेत तत्र विधेर् अनुमानात् प्रकृतिधर्मलोपः स्यात् ॥ २० ॥

api vā kramakālasaṁyuktā sadyaḥ kriyeta tatra vidher anumānāt prakṛtidharmalopaḥ syāt || 20 ||

Or, an act normally bound to a sequential time might instead be performed at once; there, since an express injunction is to be inferred, the archetype's governing property would lapse.

कालोत्कर्ष इति चेत् ॥ २१ ॥

kālotkarṣa iti cet || 21 ||

Objection: 'this amounts to an advancing (utkarṣa) of the time [of the act, to an earlier point].'

न तत्सम्बन्धात् ॥ २२ ॥

na tatsambandhāt || 22 ||

Not so — because of its own inherent connection with that immediate performance, which belongs to it in its own right, not as a borrowed advance.

अङ्गानां मुख्यकालत्वाद् यथोक्तम् उत्कर्षे स्यात् ॥ २३ ॥

aṅgānāṁ mukhyakālatvād yathoktam utkarṣe syāt || 23 ||

For the subordinate members, since they take the time of the principal act, their placement would be exactly as already stated, even in the case of an advancing (utkarṣa).

तदादि वाभिसम्बन्धात् तदन्तम् अपकर्षे स्यात् ॥ २४ ॥

tadādi vābhisambandhāt tadantam apakarṣe syāt || 24 ||

Or, starting from the principal's beginning — owing to the same connection — its placement would extend up to the principal's end, in the case of a postponement (apakarṣa).

प्रवृत्या कृतकालानाम् ॥ २५ ॥

pravṛtyā kṛtakālānām || 25 ||

This holds for those acts whose time is established through their own operation (pravṛtti).

शब्दविप्रतिषेधाच् च ॥ २६ ॥

śabdavipratiṣedhāc ca || 26 ||

And also because of a conflict between pieces of wording in the text.

असंयोगात् तु वैकृतं तद् एव प्रतिकृष्येत ॥ २७ ॥

asaṁyogāt tu vaikṛtaṁ tad eva pratikṛṣyeta || 27 ||

But where there is no direct connection to the principal act's own time, that modified element (vaikṛta, belonging to the vikṛti) would itself be drawn back, i.e. postponed to its own proper place.

Note: Source reads 'असंयोगात् तु वैकृतं तद् एव प्रतिकृष्येत.' with a stray ASCII period before the citation marker; the period was dropped as a transcription artifact (no other sutra in this file carries end punctuation).

प्रासङ्गिकं च नोत्कर्षेद् असंयोगात् ॥ २८ ॥

prāsaṅgikaṁ ca notkarṣed asaṁyogāt || 28 ||

And an act that is merely incidental (prāsaṅgika) should not be advanced to an earlier point, for want of direct connection.

तथापूर्वम् ॥ २९ ॥

tathāpūrvam || 29 ||

Likewise for an element that is apūrva — one with no precedent elsewhere to follow.

सान्तपनीया तूत्कर्षेद् अग्निहोत्रं सवनवद् वैगुण्यात् ॥ ३० ॥

sāntapanīyā tūtkarṣed agnihotraṁ savanavad vaiguṇyāt || 30 ||

But the Sāntapanīya oblation does advance the Agnihotra (daily fire-offering) to an earlier point, just as with the Savana (Soma-pressing), because otherwise a deficiency (vaiguṇya) would result.

अञ्यवायाच् च ॥ ३१ ॥

añyavāyāc ca || 31 ||

And also because there is no intervening break between them.

असम्बन्धात् तु नोत्कर्षेत् ॥ ३२ ॥

asambandhāt tu notkarṣet || 32 ||

But where there is no such connection, it should not be advanced.

प्रापणाच् च निमित्तस्य ॥ ३३ ॥

prāpaṇāc ca nimittasya || 33 ||

And also because it works to bring about the occasioning cause (nimitta) of the principal act.

सम्बन्धात् सवनोत्कर्मः ॥ ३४ ॥

sambandhāt savanotkarmaḥ || 34 ||

Because of this connection, the Savana (Soma-pressing) is advanced to an earlier point in the rite.

षोडशी चोक्थ्यसंयोगात् ॥ ३५ ॥

ṣoḍaśī cokthyasaṁyogāt || 35 ||

And the Ṣoḍaśī (the sixteenth cup/offering) is likewise placed because of its connection with the Ukthya, a particular class of Soma rite.

सन्निपाते प्राधानानाम् एकैकस्य गुणानां सर्वकर्म स्यात् ॥ १ ॥

sannipāte prādhānānām ekaikasya guṇānāṁ sarvakarma syāt || 1 ||

When several principal rites (pradhāna) concur (sannipāta, occur together), the auxiliary acts (guṇa) belonging to them would, for each single principal rite, be performed in full — i.e. repeated for each.

सर्वेषां वैकजातीयं कृतानुपूर्व्यत्वात् ॥ २ ॥

sarveṣāṁ vaikajātīyaṁ kṛtānupūrvyatvāt || 2 ||

Or, for all the concurring rites it would be a single instance (ekajātīya), since the sequential order needed has already been fixed by the first performance.

कारणाद् अभ्यावृत्तिः ॥ ३ ॥

kāraṇād abhyāvṛttiḥ || 3 ||

Repetition (abhyāvṛtti) of the auxiliary act, once for each principal rite, follows from the same underlying cause that produces it in the first place.

मुष्टिकपालावदानाञ्जनाभ्यञ्जनवपनपावनेषु चैकेन ॥ ४ ॥

muṣṭikapālāvadānāñjanābhyañjanavapanapāvaneṣu caikena || 4 ||

And in acts such as taking a handful, offering on a potsherd, cutting off the sacrificial portion, applying collyrium, anointing, shaving, and purifying — a single performance suffices for all the concurring rites.

सर्वाणि त्व् एककार्यत्वादेषां तद्गुणत्वात् ॥ ५ ॥

sarvāṇi tv ekakāryatvādeṣāṁ tadguṇatvāt || 5 ||

But it could also be argued that all these acts should be performed for each rite separately, since each has a single effect proper to it and is an auxiliary (guṇa) of it.

संयुक्ते तु प्रक्रमात् तदङ्गं स्याद् इतरस्य तदर्थत्वात् ॥ ६ ॥

saṁyukte tu prakramāt tadaṅgaṁ syād itarasya tadarthatvāt || 6 ||

But when the rites are joined together, by continuity of the ritual procedure (prakrama), the repeated act becomes an auxiliary member of the other rite too, since it serves that purpose as well.

वचनात् तु परिव्याणान्तम् अञ्जनादिः स्यात् ॥ ७ ॥

vacanāt tu parivyāṇāntam añjanādiḥ syāt || 7 ||

But by explicit textual statement, the sequence from the applying of collyrium up to the parivyāṇa (the binding rite) is fixed as a single continuous group.

कारणाद्वा वसर्गः स्याद् यथा पात्रवृद्धिः ॥ ८ ॥

kāraṇādvā vasargaḥ syād yathā pātravṛddhiḥ || 8 ||

Or, from that same cause, there would be a single application (visarga) covering all, just as a single measure suffices though the vessel used is enlarged to match the increased quantity.

Note: Source reads 'कारणाद्वा(न) वसर्गः' with a stray ASCII-bracketed Devanagari 'न' inserted mid-word as an apparent editorial variant-reading annotation; removed as a non-textual mark, consistent with this project's practice of excluding Wikisource's own editorial marks from the sanskrit field.

न वा शब्दकृतत्वान् न्यायमात्रमितरदर्थात् पात्रविवृद्धिः ॥ ९ ॥

na vā śabdakṛtatvān nyāyamātramitaradarthāt pātravivṛddhiḥ || 9 ||

Or, that does not hold, since the single application is established by direct textual word (śabda); the other inference is mere logical reasoning (nyāyamātra) from a different consideration, as with the enlarging of the vessel, which changes without multiplying the act.

पशुगणे तस्यतस्यापवर्जयेत् पश्वैकत्वात् ॥ १० ॥

paśugaṇe tasyatasyāpavarjayet paśvaikatvāt || 10 ||

In the case of a group of sacrificial animals, the relevant act should be assigned separately to each one respectively, since each animal is a single unit.

दैवतैर् वैककर्म्यात् ॥ ११ ॥

daivatair vaikakarmyāt || 11 ||

This holds good by reason of their different deities (devatā), since the offering to each has its own single act.

मन्त्रस्य चार्थवत्त्वात् ॥ १२ ॥

mantrasya cārthavattvāt || 12 ||

And also because the mantra, the accompanying Vedic verse, has its own specific significance for each performance.

नानाबीजेष्वेकमुलूखलं विभवात् ॥ १३ ॥

nānābījeṣvekamulūkhalaṁ vibhavāt || 13 ||

Where grains from different seeds are being pounded, a single mortar (ulūkhala) suffices for all of them, on account of its capacity to accommodate them together.

विवृद्धिर् वा नियामादानुपूर्व्यस्य तदर्थत्वात् ॥ १४ ॥

vivṛddhir vā niyāmādānupūrvyasya tadarthatvāt || 14 ||

Or, the mortar's increase in size follows from the fixed order in which the grains are added, since the act of pounding exists for that sequential purpose.

एकं वा तण्डुलभावाद् धन्तेस् तदर्थत्वात् ॥ १५ ॥

ekaṁ vā taṇḍulabhāvād dhantes tadarthatvāt || 15 ||

Or, the mortar remains a single one, because all the different grains, once pounded, arrive at the common state of husked rice (taṇḍula), the act of pounding (√han) existing precisely for that end.

विकारे त्व् अनूयाजानां पात्रभेदोऽर्थभेदात् स्यात् ॥ १६ ॥

vikāre tv anūyājānāṁ pātrabhedo'rthabhedāt syāt || 16 ||

But in a modified rite (vikāra), for the anūyāja, a class of after-offerings following the main oblation, there would be a difference of vessel, since each after-offering there serves a different purpose.

प्रकृतेः पूर्वोक्तत्वाद् अपूर्वम् अन्ते स्यान् न ह्य् अचोदितस्य शेषाम्नानम् ॥ १७ ॥

prakṛteḥ pūrvoktatvād apūrvam ante syān na hy acoditasya śeṣāmnānam || 17 ||

Since the archetype rite has already been treated earlier in the text, any element without precedent there (apūrva) would come at the end of the modified rite's treatment; for what is not itself specifically enjoined has no supplementary mention elsewhere.

मुख्यानन्तर्यमात्रेयस् तेन तुल्यश्रुतित्वाद् अशब्दत्वात् प्राकृतानां व्यवायः स्यात् ॥ १८ ॥

mukhyānantaryamātreyas tena tulyaśrutitvād aśabdatvāt prākṛtānāṁ vyavāyaḥ syāt || 18 ||

Ātreya holds that an added element follows immediately after the principal act; on that view, since both old and new elements carry equal textual standing yet the new element has no explicit word fixing its place, the archetypal elements (prākṛta) end up interposed between the principal act and the new element.

अन्ते तु बादरायणस् तेषां प्रधानशब्दत्वात् ॥ १९ ॥

ante tu bādarāyaṇas teṣāṁ pradhānaśabdatvāt || 19 ||

But Bādarāyaṇa holds that it comes at the end, because those interposed archetypal elements carry the standing of the principal rite's own wording, and so must not be broken up.

तथा चान्यार्थदर्शनम् ॥ २० ॥

tathā cānyārthadarśanam || 20 ||

And accordingly, such instances — where an element serves another's, i.e. the principal's, purpose while yet standing apart — are indeed observed.

कृतदेशात् तु पूर्वेषां स देशः स्यात् तेन प्रत्यक्षसंयोगान् न्यायमात्रमितरत् ॥ २१ ॥

kṛtadeśāt tu pūrveṣāṁ sa deśaḥ syāt tena pratyakṣasaṁyogān nyāyamātramitarat || 21 ||

But since the earlier elements already have an established place, that same place remains theirs; on account of this direct textual connection, the rival view is mere inference (nyāyamātra) without direct textual support.

Note: Source reads 'नयायमात्रम्' (missing the न्य conjunct present in the parallel phrase at 5.2.9, 'न्यायमात्रम्'); normalized to 'न्यायमात्रम्' as a dropped-virama transcription error.

प्रकृताच् च पुरस्ताद् यत् ॥ २२ ॥

prakṛtāc ca purastād yat || 22 ||

And the same holds for whatever element comes before the archetype's own treatment.

सन्निपातश् चेद् यथोक्तमन्ते स्यात् ॥ २३ ॥

sannipātaś ced yathoktamante syāt || 23 ||

And if there is a concurrence of both considerations, the element would come at the end, exactly as already stated.

विवृद्धिः कर्मभेदात् पृषदाज्यवत् तस्यतस्योपदिश्येत ॥ १ ॥

vivṛddhiḥ karmabhedāt pṛṣadājyavat tasyatasyopadiśyeta || 1 ||

Augmentation (vivṛddhi, extension of a rite's elements) should be taught separately for each rite according to the difference of act involved, just as with pṛṣadājya, the curds-and-ghee mixture prepared differently for different rites.

अपि वा सर्वसङ्ख्यत्वाद् विकारः प्रतीयेत ॥ २ ॥

api vā sarvasaṅkhyatvād vikāraḥ pratīyeta || 2 ||

Or else, since it concerns the whole count, a single uniform modification (vikāra) might instead be understood to cover all cases alike.

स्वस्थानात् तु विवृध्येरन् कृतानुपूर्व्यत्वात् ॥ ३ ॥

svasthānāt tu vivṛdhyeran kṛtānupūrvyatvāt || 3 ||

But rather, the elements would be augmented from their own already fixed place, since the sequential order has already been settled.

समिध्यमानवतीं समिद्धवतीं चान्तरेण धाय्याः स्युर् द्यावापृथिव्योरन्तरालं समर्हणात् ॥ ४ ॥

samidhyamānavatīṁ samiddhavatīṁ cāntareṇa dhāyyāḥ syur dyāvāpṛthivyorantarālaṁ samarhaṇāt || 4 ||

The Dhāyyā verses, a set of accompanying recitations, fall between the Samidhyamānā and Samiddhavatī verses, as if occupying the interval between heaven and earth (dyāvāpṛthivī), owing to their fitness for that medial place.

Note: Source reads 'द्यावापृथिञ्योः' — 'पृथिञ्योः' is not a valid form; normalized to the standard dvandva 'पृथिव्योः' (dyāvāpṛthivī, 'heaven-and-earth'), a well-attested Vedic pairing, treating the source's reading as a transcription corruption.

तच्छब्दो वा ॥ ५ ॥

tacchabdo vā || 5 ||

Or, the same conclusion follows simply from that very wording of the text.

उष्णिक्ककुभोरन्ते दर्शनात् ॥ ६ ॥

uṣṇikkakubhorante darśanāt || 6 ||

The same rule applies to the Uṣṇik and Kakubh metres — placed at the end, since such placement is actually observed in the text.

स्तोमविवृद्धौ वहिष्पवमाने पुरस्तात् पर्यासाद् आगन्तवः स्युस् तथा हि दृष्टं द्वादशाहे ॥ ७ ॥

stomavivṛddhau vahiṣpavamāne purastāt paryāsād āgantavaḥ syus tathā hi dṛṣṭaṁ dvādaśāhe || 7 ||

In an augmentation of the Stoma, within the Bahiṣpavamāna chant, the additional verses enter from the front, by a kind of reversal (paryāsa); for this is indeed observed in the Dvādaśāha, the twelve-day sacrifice.

पर्यास इति चान्ताख्या ॥ ८ ॥

paryāsa iti cāntākhyā || 8 ||

And this reversal (paryāsa) is in fact what is meant by the designation 'at the end' used elsewhere for such placement.

अन्ते वा तदुक्तम् ॥ ९ ॥

ante vā taduktam || 9 ||

Or, more simply, it is directly stated to be at the end.

वचनात् तु द्वादशाहे ॥ १० ॥

vacanāt tu dvādaśāhe || 10 ||

But by explicit textual statement, in the case of the Dvādaśāha rite specifically, the placement differs from the general rule.

अतद्विकारश् च ॥ ११ ॥

atadvikāraś ca || 11 ||

And this holds for an element that is not itself a modification derived from that Dvādaśāha.

तद्विकारेऽप्य् अपूर्वत्वात् ॥ १२ ॥

tadvikāre'py apūrvatvāt || 12 ||

Even for a modification of that Dvādaśāha rite the same rule applies, because there too the element is without precedent in the model.

अन्ते तूत्तरयोर् दध्यात् ॥ १३ ॥

ante tūttarayor dadhyāt || 13 ||

But at the end, one should place the element with respect to the latter two of the relevant set.

अपि वा गायत्रीबृहत्यनुष्टुप्सु वचनात् ॥ १४ ॥

api vā gāyatrībṛhatyanuṣṭupsu vacanāt || 14 ||

Or else, the placement follows a different rule for the Gāyatrī, Bṛhatī, and Anuṣṭubh metres, on the strength of explicit textual statement.

ग्रहेष्टकम् औपानुवाक्यं सवनचितिशेषः स्यात् ॥ १५ ॥

graheṣṭakam aupānuvākyaṁ savanacitiśeṣaḥ syāt || 15 ||

The Grahaiṣṭaka, a brick connected with the Soma-cups, and the Aupānuvākya offering count as remainders (śeṣa, subordinate leftover elements) of the Savana fire-altar (citi).

क्रत्वग्निशेषा वा चोदितत्वाद् अचोदनानुपूर्वस्य ॥ १६ ॥

kratvagniśeṣā vā coditatvād acodanānupūrvasya || 16 ||

Or, alternatively, they are remainders of the Kratvagni, the rite's own sacrificial fire, since they are separately enjoined there, for an element whose sequence is not otherwise fixed by any injunction.

अन्ते स्युर् अव्यवायात् ॥ १७ ॥

ante syur avyavāyāt || 17 ||

They would in any case fall at the end, since there is no intervening break.

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च ॥ १८ ॥

liṅgadarśanāc ca || 18 ||

And also because an indicatory sign (liṅga, an inferential textual mark) is observed supporting this.

मध्यमायां तु वचनाद् ब्राह्मणवत्यः ॥ १९ ॥

madhyamāyāṁ tu vacanād brāhmaṇavatyaḥ || 19 ||

But in the middle chant, by explicit statement, the Brāhmaṇavatī verses occur there specifically.

प्राग्लोकम्पृणायास् तस्याः सम्पूरणार्थत्वात् ॥ २० ॥

prāglokampṛṇāyās tasyāḥ sampūraṇārthatvāt || 20 ||

These come before the Lokampṛṇā verse, since that verse's own purpose is to ritually fill out or complete the sequence.

संस्कृते कर्म संस्काराणां तदर्थत्वात् ॥ २१ ॥

saṁskṛte karma saṁskārāṇāṁ tadarthatvāt || 21 ||

In respect of the already consecrated substance, the act in question belongs among the consecrating rites (saṁskāra), since it exists precisely for that end.

अनन्तरं व्रतं तद्भूतत्वात् ॥ २२ ॥

anantaraṁ vrataṁ tadbhūtatvāt || 22 ||

The vrata, a preparatory vow, comes immediately after, since it forms part of that same consecrating process.

पूर्वं च लिङ्गदर्शनात् ॥ २३ ॥

pūrvaṁ ca liṅgadarśanāt || 23 ||

And in another respect it comes before, on the strength of an indicatory textual sign.

अर्थवादो वार्थस्य विद्यमानत्वात् ॥ २४ ॥

arthavādo vārthasya vidyamānatvāt || 24 ||

Or, that particular passage is merely an arthavāda, an explanatory or laudatory statement rather than an injunction, since the relevant purpose already exists independently.

न्यायविप्रतिषेधाच् च ॥ २५ ॥

nyāyavipratiṣedhāc ca || 25 ||

And also because the alternative reading would conflict with established principle (nyāya).

सञ्चिते त्व् अग्निचिद् युक्तं प्रापणान् निमित्तस्य ॥ २६ ॥

sañcite tv agnicid yuktaṁ prāpaṇān nimittasya || 26 ||

But once the fire-altar has been fully piled up, it is proper for the Agnicit, the one who builds the fire-altar, to proceed further, since the occasioning cause for the next act has then been brought about.

क्रत्वन्ते वा प्रयोगवचनाभावात् ॥ २७ ॥

kratvante vā prayogavacanābhāvāt || 27 ||

Or rather it falls at the end of the whole rite, since there is no explicit statement about its application elsewhere.

अग्नेः कर्मत्वनिर्देशात् ॥ २८ ॥

agneḥ karmatvanirdeśāt || 28 ||

This follows also because the text specifically indicates it as an act belonging to the sacred fire.

परेणावेदनाद् दीक्षितः स्यात् सर्वैर् दीक्षाभिसम्बन्धात् ॥ २९ ॥

pareṇāvedanād dīkṣitaḥ syāt sarvair dīkṣābhisambandhāt || 29 ||

By making an announcement to another officiant, one becomes formally consecrated (dīkṣita), since the consecration (dīkṣā) concerns all the participants alike.

इष्ट्यन्ते वा तदर्था ह्य् अविशेषार्थसम्बन्धात् ॥ ३० ॥

iṣṭyante vā tadarthā hy aviśeṣārthasambandhāt || 30 ||

Or it comes at the end of the Iṣṭi, a minor oblation, for that very purpose — since indeed there it has a connection with a purpose that is otherwise unspecified.

Note: Source reads 'अविशेषार्थसन्वन्धात्' — 'सन्वन्धात्' is not a valid Sanskrit form; normalized to 'सम्बन्धात्' (sambandha, 'connection'), the plainly intended word, treating the source's reading as a transcription corruption.

समाख्यानं च तद्वत् ॥ ३१ ॥

samākhyānaṁ ca tadvat || 31 ||

And the ritual designation/narrative element (samākhyāna) follows in the same way.

अङ्गवत् क्रतूनाम् आनुपूर्व्यम् ॥ ३२ ॥

aṅgavat kratūnām ānupūrvyam || 32 ||

The sequential order of entire sacrificial rites (kratu) follows the same principles as that of their individual members (aṅga).

न वासम्बन्धात् ॥ ३३ ॥

na vāsambandhāt || 33 ||

Or it does not follow that pattern, where there is no such connection.

काम्यत्वाच् च ॥ ३४ ॥

kāmyatvāc ca || 34 ||

And also because certain rites are optional (kāmya), performed for a specific desired result rather than obligatorily.

आनर्थक्यान् नेति चेत् ॥ ३५ ॥

ānarthakyān neti cet || 35 ||

Objection: 'this reasoning is not valid, on account of the purposelessness it would result in.'

स्याद् विद्यार्थत्वाद् यथा परेषु सर्वस्वारात् ॥ ३६ ॥

syād vidyārthatvād yathā pareṣu sarvasvārāt || 36 ||

It nonetheless holds, because the purpose is for the sake of instruction (vidyā), just as with the Sarvasvāra, a particular chant, among other comparable cases.

य एतेनेत्य् अग्निष्टोमः प्रकरणात् ॥ ३७ ॥

ya etenety agniṣṭomaḥ prakaraṇāt || 37 ||

The phrase 'he who performs the rite by this...' refers to the Agniṣṭoma, a specific Soma sacrifice, on the strength of the surrounding context (prakaraṇa).

लिङ्गाच् च ॥ ३८ ॥

liṅgāc ca || 38 ||

And also on the strength of an indicatory textual sign.

अथान्येनेति संस्थानां सन्निधानात् ॥ ३९ ॥

athānyeneti saṁsthānāṁ sannidhānāt || 39 ||

The phrase 'now, by another rite...' refers to the various Saṁsthās, the different concluding forms of the Soma sacrifice, because of their proximity to this passage in the text.

तत्प्रकृतेर् वापत्तिविहारौ न तुल्येषूपपद्यते ॥ ४० ॥

tatprakṛter vāpattivihārau na tulyeṣūpapadyate || 40 ||

Or, reckoned from its archetype, the two possible relations of inclusion and separation do not properly apply among things that are equal in status.

प्रशंसा च विहरणाभावात् ॥ ४१ ॥

praśaṁsā ca viharaṇābhāvāt || 41 ||

And instead there is only commendation (praśaṁsā, laudatory mention), since there is no actual separating out of a distinct rite.

Note: Source reads 'प्रशसा' (missing the anusvara found in the same word at 5.3.42 and 5.3.44, 'प्रशंसा'); normalized to 'प्रशंसा' as a dropped-anusvara transcription error.

विधिप्रत्ययाद् वा न ह्य् अकस्मात् प्रशंसा स्यात् ॥ ४२ ॥

vidhipratyayād vā na hy akasmāt praśaṁsā syāt || 42 ||

Or it is a genuine injunction, because of the very notion of an injunction conveyed; for indeed mere praise would not arise without cause.

एकस्तोमे वा क्रतुसंयोगात् ॥ ४३ ॥

ekastome vā kratusaṁyogāt || 43 ||

Or this applies in the case of a single Stoma, a chant-structure, because of its connection with the principal rite.

सर्वेषां वा चोदनाविशेषात् प्रशंसा स्तोमानाम् ॥ ४४ ॥

sarveṣāṁ vā codanāviśeṣāt praśaṁsā stomānām || 44 ||

Or, since there is no difference among their several injunctions, what applies to all the Stomas alike is understood as mere commendation of the Stomas, rather than a fresh, separate rule for each.

क्रमोयोऽर्थशब्दाभ्यां श्रुतिविशेषाद् अर्थपरत्वाच् च ॥ १ ॥

kramoyo'rthaśabdābhyāṁ śrutiviśeṣād arthaparatvāc ca || 1 ||

The order of ritual acts that is jointly determined by purpose (artha) and word (śabda) is established here on account of a specific feature of the Vedic text, and because any textual order is ultimately oriented toward purpose.

Note: Source reads 'क्रमकोयोऽर्थशब्दाभ्यां', with an apparently duplicated/stray syllable 'क' between 'क्रम' and 'ोयो'; normalized to 'क्रमोयोऽर्थशब्दाभ्यां' (krama + yaḥ, regular visarga sandhi), the reading required by grammar and by the well-attested opening of this pada.

अवदानाभिघारणासादनेष्व् आनुपूर्व्यं प्रवृत्या स्यात् ॥ २ ॥

avadānābhighāraṇāsādaneṣv ānupūrvyaṁ pravṛtyā syāt || 2 ||

In the acts of cutting off the sacrificial portion, basting it with ghee, and placing it on the fire, the proper sequence follows from the order of their actual performance.

यथाप्रदानं वा तदर्थत्वात् ॥ ३ ॥

yathāpradānaṁ vā tadarthatvāt || 3 ||

Or the sequence follows the order of their actual offering, since each act exists for that same purpose.

Note: Source reads 'यथारप्रदानं' with a stray syllable 'र' between 'यथा' and 'प्रदानं' that fits no sandhi rule; normalized to 'यथाप्रदानं' as a transcription artifact.

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च ॥ ४ ॥

liṅgadarśanāc ca || 4 ||

And also on the strength of an indicatory textual sign.

वचनाद् इष्टिपूर्वत्वम् ॥ ५ ॥

vacanād iṣṭipūrvatvam || 5 ||

By explicit textual statement, the Iṣṭi, the minor oblation, takes precedence, i.e. is performed first.

सोमश् चैकेषाम् अग्नयाधेयस्यर्तुनक्षत्रातिक्रमवचनात् तदन्तेनानर्थकं हि स्यात् ॥ ६ ॥

somaś caikeṣām agnayādheyasyartunakṣatrātikramavacanāt tadantenānarthakaṁ hi syāt || 6 ||

And according to some authorities the Soma sacrifice is placed after the Agnyādheya, the rite establishing the sacred fires, because of the text's statement permitting a lapse of the otherwise mandated season and lunar asterism for the Agnyādheya — for if that statement were taken to apply at the end instead, it would become purposeless.

तदर्थवचनाच् च नाविशेषात् तदर्थत्वं ॥ ७ ॥

tadarthavacanāc ca nāviśeṣāt tadarthatvaṁ || 7 ||

And also because there is a statement specifically for that purpose; but elsewhere, for want of such specification, that same purposiveness does not automatically apply.

अयक्ष्यमाणस्य च पवमानहविषां कालनिर्देशाद् आनन्तर्याद् विशङ्का स्यात् ॥ ८ ॥

ayakṣyamāṇasya ca pavamānahaviṣāṁ kālanirdeśād ānantaryād viśaṅkā syāt || 8 ||

And for one who is not presently about to perform the Soma sacrifice, a doubt arises from the indicated timing of the Pavamāna oblations taken together with their immediate succession to the preceding rite.

इष्टिर् अयक्ष्यमाणस्य तदर्थ्ये न सोमपूर्वत्वम् ॥ ९ ॥

iṣṭir ayakṣyamāṇasya tadarthye na somapūrvatvam || 9 ||

For one not immediately about to perform the Soma sacrifice, the Iṣṭi, even though performed for that purpose, does not in this case take precedence over Soma — i.e. is not classed among the Soma-preceding rites.

उत्कर्षाद् ब्राह्मणस्य सोमः स्यात् ॥ १० ॥

utkarṣād brāhmaṇasya somaḥ syāt || 10 ||

By way of advancing its usual place, the Soma sacrifice would in this context be treated as governed by the Brāhmaṇa passage in question.

पौर्णमासी वा श्रुतिसंयोगात् ॥ ११ ॥

paurṇamāsī vā śrutisaṁyogāt || 11 ||

Or, rather, what is meant is the Paurṇamāsī, the full-moon sacrifice, because of its direct connection with the text.

सर्वस्य वैककर्म्यात् ॥ १२ ॥

sarvasya vaikakarmyāt || 12 ||

This follows because the whole rite constitutes a single act.

स्याद् वा विधिस् तदर्थेन ॥ १३ ॥

syād vā vidhis tadarthena || 13 ||

Or, rather, there would be a fresh injunction, for that same purpose.

प्रकरणात् तु कालः स्यात् ॥ १४ ॥

prakaraṇāt tu kālaḥ syāt || 14 ||

But the proper time is rather determined from the context (prakaraṇa).

स्वकाले स्याद् अविप्रतिषेधात् ॥ १५ ॥

svakāle syād avipratiṣedhāt || 15 ||

It would occur at its own natural time, since there is no conflict in doing so.

अपनयो वाधानस्य सर्वकालत्वात् ॥ १६ ॥

apanayo vādhānasya sarvakālatvāt || 16 ||

Or, there is instead an exception made for the Ādhāna, the fire-establishing rite, since it alone applies at all times.

पौर्णमास्य् ऊर्ध्वं सोमाद् ब्राह्मणस्य वचनात् ॥ १७ ॥

paurṇamāsy ūrdhvaṁ somād brāhmaṇasya vacanāt || 17 ||

The Paurṇamāsī is performed after the Soma sacrifice, on the strength of the Brāhmaṇa text's own statement.

एकं वा शब्दसामर्थ्यात् प्राक् कृत्स्नविधानम् ॥ १८ ॥

ekaṁ vā śabdasāmarthyāt prāk kṛtsnavidhānam || 18 ||

Or it is understood as a single rite, performed beforehand, by the very force of the wording — in effect, one complete injunction covering the whole matter.

पुरोडाशस् त्व् अनिर्देशे तद्युक्ते देवताभावात् ॥ १९ ॥

puroḍāśas tv anirdeśe tadyukte devatābhāvāt || 19 ||

But the Puroḍāśa, the rice-cake offering, when there is no explicit specification of which oblation-substance to use, is understood where that substance is otherwise suitable, because of what the deity requires.

आज्यमपीति चेत् ॥ २० ॥

ājyamapīti cet || 20 ||

Objection: 'surely Ājya, clarified butter, too could serve as the oblation-substance here.'

न मिश्रदेवतत्वाद् ऐन्द्राग्नवत् ॥ २१ ॥

na miśradevatatvād aindrāgnavat || 21 ||

Not so — because Ājya here would involve a mixed deity, as in the offering belonging jointly to Indra and Agni (Aindrāgna).

विकृतेः प्रकृतिकालत्वात् सद्यस्कालोत्तरा विकृतिस् तयोः प्रत्यक्षशिष्टत्वात् ॥ २२ ॥

vikṛteḥ prakṛtikālatvāt sadyaskālottarā vikṛtis tayoḥ pratyakṣaśiṣṭatvāt || 22 ||

Since the modified rite (vikṛti) takes the time of the archetype (prakṛti), it follows immediately, on the same day, after the archetype, because both rites are directly taught together in the text.

द्वैयहकाल्ये तु यथान्यायम् ॥ २३ ॥

dvaiyahakālye tu yathānyāyam || 23 ||

But where the rite involves a two-day timing, the order follows according to the general principle already established.

वचनाद् वैककाल्यं स्यात् ॥ २४ ॥

vacanād vaikakālyaṁ syāt || 24 ||

By explicit statement, in certain cases a single, unified timing would instead obtain.

सन्नाय्याग्नीषोमीयविकारा ऊर्ध्वं सोमात्प्रकृतिवत् ॥ २५ ॥

sannāyyāgnīṣomīyavikārā ūrdhvaṁ somātprakṛtivat || 25 ||

The modified forms of the Sannāyya, a curds-oblation, and the Āgnīṣomīya, the Agni-and-Soma offering, occur after the Soma sacrifice, just as they do in the archetype rite.

तथा सोमविकारा दर्शपूर्णमासाभ्याम् ॥ २६ ॥

tathā somavikārā darśapūrṇamāsābhyām || 26 ||

Likewise, the modified forms of the Soma sacrifice are placed in relation to the Darśa (new-moon) and Pūrṇamāsa (full-moon) sacrifices, i.e. follow the same principle as those two archetype rites.

द्रव्याणां कर्मसंयोगे गुणत्वेनाभिसम्बन्धः

dravyāṇāṁ karmasaṁyoge guṇatvenābhisambandhaḥ

In connection with a ritual action, material substances (dravya, the goods/materials used in a rite) are related to it as a subsidiary factor (guṇa, an accessory element, as opposed to the principal/pradhāna).

असाधकं तु तादर्थ्यात्

asādhakaṁ tu tādarthyāt

But it (the substance) is not itself the accomplisher [of the result], because it exists only for the sake of that [the act] (tādarthya, the state of existing for another's purpose).

प्रत्यर्थं चाभिसंयोगात्कर्मतो ह्य् अभिसम्बन्धस् तस्मात् कर्मोपदेशः स्यात्

pratyarthaṁ cābhisaṁyogātkarmato hy abhisambandhas tasmāt karmopadeśaḥ syāt

And because the connection [of each substance] is with reference to each particular object, and the relation truly proceeds from the act (karma) — therefore the [Vedic] teaching is [properly] of the ritual action [not of the substance].

फलार्थत्वात् कर्मणः शास्त्रं सर्वाधिकारं स्यात्

phalārthatvāt karmaṇaḥ śāstraṁ sarvādhikāraṁ syāt

Since the ritual act exists for the sake of a fruit (phala, the result obtained from performing a rite), the scriptural injunction would extend entitlement (adhikāra, the qualification/right to perform a Vedic rite) universally [to anyone who desires that fruit].

कर्तुर् वा श्रुतिसंयोगाद् विधिः कार्त्स्न्येन गम्यते

kartur vā śrutisaṁyogād vidhiḥ kārtsnyena gamyate

Or rather, because of the connection with the agent (kartṛ, the doer/performer of the rite) as stated in the Vedic wording (śruti), the injunction (vidhi, the Vedic ritual command) is understood in its entirety [as restricted to that specific agent].

लिङ्गविशेषनिर्देशात् पुंयुक्तम् ऐतिशायनः

liṅgaviśeṣanirdeśāt puṁyuktam aitiśāyanaḥ

Because of the mention of a specific gender-marker (liṅga, a grammatical or contextual indicator), [entitlement] is linked to the male — so holds Aitiśāyana.

तदुक्तित्वाच् च दोषश्रुतिर् अविज्ञाते

taduktitvāc ca doṣaśrutir avijñāte

And because it is stated by that same [indication], the Vedic mention of a fault/defect (doṣaśruti) applies where [the agent] is not [otherwise] specified.

जातिं तु बादरायणोऽविशेषात् तस्मात् स्त्र्य् अपि प्रतीयेत जात्यर्थस्याविशिष्टत्वात्

jātiṁ tu bādarāyaṇo'viśeṣāt tasmāt stry api pratīyeta jātyarthasyāviśiṣṭatvāt

But Bādarāyaṇa [holds that entitlement depends] on class/birth-group (jāti — here, the genus 'human being'), because there is no distinction [within that genus by sex]; therefore a woman too would be understood [as qualified], since the sense of the word 'jāti' is undifferentiated [by gender].

चोदितत्वाद् यथाश्रुति

coditatvād yathāśruti

Because [entitlement] is [directly] enjoined, it should be understood exactly as heard (yathāśruti) [in the literal wording of the Vedic text, i.e. in the masculine].

द्रव्यवत्त्वात् तु पुंसां स्याद् द्रव्यसंयुक्तं क्रयविक्रयाभ्याम् अद्रव्यत्वं स्त्रीणां द्रव्यैः समानयोगित्वात्

dravyavattvāt tu puṁsāṁ syād dravyasaṁyuktaṁ krayavikrayābhyām adravyatvaṁ strīṇāṁ dravyaiḥ samānayogitvāt

But since men possess property, [entitlement] would belong to men — property being connected through buying and selling; women lack independent ownership of property (adravyatva), since women themselves stand equally yoked together with property [i.e. are themselves classed as an object of transaction, on a par with property].

तथा चान्यार्थदर्शनम्

tathā cānyārthadarśanam

And thus [this is confirmed by] observing another case with a different purport (anyārthadarśana) [elsewhere in the Veda].

तादर्थ्यात् कर्म तादर्थ्यम्

tādarthyāt karma tādarthyam

Because of [her] being-for-another's-sake (tādarthya), her ritual action likewise is for-another's-sake (tādarthya).

फलोत्साहाविशेषात् तु

phalotsāhāviśeṣāt tu

But because there is no difference in the eagerness for the fruit [between husband and wife, both share it equally].

अर्थेन च समवेतत्वात्

arthena ca samavetatvāt

And because she is conjoined [with her husband] through wealth (artha).

क्रयस्य धर्ममात्रत्वम्

krayasya dharmamātratvam

The 'purchase' [of a bride, spoken of in the marriage rite] is a matter of dharma (ritual propriety) alone [not a literal commercial transaction].

Note: Source (Wikisource) reads थर्ममात्रत्वम् -- थ where सन्धि/context requires ध (धर्ममात्रत्वम्, 'being merely a matter of dharma/formal obligation'); थर्म is not a Sanskrit word. Corrected to धर्म as a mechanical single-akshara transcription-error fix; original reading noted here for the record.

स्ववत्ताम् अपि दर्शयति

svavattām api darśayati

[The Veda] also shows her possessing what is her own (svavattā, independent ownership).

स्ववतोस् तु वचनाद् ऐककर्म्यं स्यात्

svavatos tu vacanād aikakarmyaṁ syāt

But since both [husband and wife] each possess what is their own, by Vedic statement there would be a oneness of the ritual act (aikakarmya, i.e. their joint performance becomes a single unified action).

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च

liṅgadarśanāc ca

And because of observing the [grammatical/contextual] indicator (liṅga) [as well].

क्रीतत्वात् तु भक्त्या स्वामित्वम् उच्यते

krītatvāt tu bhaktyā svāmitvam ucyate

But because of being 'purchased' [in the marriage rite], ownership (svāmitva, proprietorship) [over her] is spoken of only in a secondary/figurative sense (bhaktyā), [not literally].

फलार्थित्वात् तु स्वामित्वेनाभिसम्बन्धः

phalārthitvāt tu svāmitvenābhisambandhaḥ

But because of desiring the fruit, her relation [to the rite] is by way of ownership [i.e. she too relates to it as a proprietress].

फलवत्तां च दर्शयति

phalavattāṁ ca darśayati

[The Veda] also shows her possessing a share of the fruit.

द्व्याधानं च द्वियज्ञवत्

dvyādhānaṁ ca dviyajñavat

And the setting-up of two [fires, by husband and wife] is like a pair of sacrifices.

गुणस्य तु विधानत्वात् पत्न्या द्वितीयशब्दः स्यात्

guṇasya tu vidhānatvāt patnyā dvitīyaśabdaḥ syāt

But since she (the wife) is enjoined as a subsidiary factor (guṇa), the word 'second' (dvitīya) would apply to the wife [she is termed the secondary participant].

तस्या यावदुक्तम् आशीर् ब्रह्मचर्यम् अतुल्यत्वात्

tasyā yāvaduktam āśīr brahmacaryam atulyatvāt

For her, whatever is stated regarding blessing (āśīḥ) [and] studentship/celibacy (brahmacarya) [applies only insofar as stated], because of non-equivalence [with the corresponding male rules].

चातुर्वर्ण्यम् अविशेषात्

cāturvarṇyam aviśeṣāt

The four social classes (varṇa, i.e. brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, and śūdra) [are entitled] without distinction.

निर्देशाद् वा त्रयाणां स्याद् अग्न्याधेयेऽसम्बन्धः क्रतुषु ब्राह्मणश्रुतेर् इत्य् आत्रेयः

nirdeśād vā trayāṇāṁ syād agnyādheye'sambandhaḥ kratuṣu brāhmaṇaśruter ity ātreyaḥ

Or else, because of direct specification, [entitlement] would belong to [only] the three [twice-born varnas]; there is no connection [for the śūdra, the fourth class] to the fire-establishment (agnyādheya); [and] in [certain major] sacrifices, because of the Vedic mention of 'brāhmaṇa' [specifically] — so holds Ātreya.

निमित्तार्थे न बादरिस् तस्मात् सर्वाधिकारं स्यात्

nimittārthe na bādaris tasmāt sarvādhikāraṁ syāt

Bādari [holds] otherwise regarding the matter of the operative basis (nimitta, the occasioning cause/ground of a rule); therefore entitlement would be universal.

अपि वान्यार्थदर्शनाद् यथाश्रुति प्रतीयेत

api vānyārthadarśanād yathāśruti pratīyeta

Or else, because of observing another case with a different purport, it would be understood exactly as [literally] heard.

निर्देशात् तु पक्षे स्यात्

nirdeśāt tu pakṣe syāt

But because of the direct specification, it would apply [only] to [one] side/alternative (pakṣa).

वैगुण्यान् नेति चेत्

vaiguṇyān neti cet

If it be objected: 'Not so, because of a deficiency/defect (vaiguṇya)'...

न काम्यत्वात्

na kāmyatvāt

No, because it is an optional rite (kāmya, one performed from desire for a specific result, as opposed to an obligatory/nitya rite).

संस्कारे च तत्प्रधानत्वात्

saṁskāre ca tatpradhānatvāt

And in the case of the sanctifying rite (saṁskāra, a purificatory ritual such as the sacred-thread investiture), because that factor is the principal element there.

अपि वा वेदनिर्देशाद् अपशूद्राणां प्रतीयेत

api vā vedanirdeśād apaśūdrāṇāṁ pratīyeta

Or else, because of the specification 'of the Veda', it would be understood [as applying only] to those other than śūdras (apaśūdra, i.e. the three twice-born classes entitled to Vedic study).

गुणार्थित्वान् नेति चेत्

guṇārthitvān neti cet

If it be objected: 'Not so, because [what is] desired [there] is merely a subsidiary aim (guṇārthitva)'...

संस्कारस्य तदर्थत्वाद् विद्यायां पुरुषश्रुतिः

saṁskārasya tadarthatvād vidyāyāṁ puruṣaśrutiḥ

Because the sanctifying rite exists for the sake of that [Vedic learning], the Vedic mention of 'person' (puruṣa) applies with respect to [Vedic] learning (vidyā, sacred knowledge/study).

विद्यानिर्देशान् नेति चेत्

vidyānirdeśān neti cet

If it be objected: 'Not so, because of the [restrictive] specification regarding [Vedic] learning'...

अबैद्यत्वाद् अभावः कर्मणि स्यात्

abaidyatvād abhāvaḥ karmaṇi syāt

Because of not being connected with the Veda (abaidyatva, lacking Vedic qualification), there would be non-application/absence in respect of the ritual act.

तथा चान्यार्थदर्शनम्

tathā cānyārthadarśanam

And thus one observes [a case with] a different purport [elsewhere, confirming this].

त्रयाणां द्रव्यसम्पन्नः कर्मणी द्रव्यसिद्धत्वात्

trayāṇāṁ dravyasampannaḥ karmaṇī dravyasiddhatvāt

Of the three [twice-born varnas], one who possesses wealth (dravyasampanna) is [qualified as] the ritual agent, since [the rite] is accomplished by means of material substance (dravya).

अनित्यत्वात् तु नैवं स्याद् अर्थाद् धि द्रव्यसंयोगः

anityatvāt tu naivaṁ syād arthād dhi dravyasaṁyogaḥ

But because [wealth] is impermanent, it would not be so; for indeed, the connection with material substance follows contextually from the purport [of the injunction, not as a fixed precondition].

अङ्गहीनश् च तद्धर्मा

aṅgahīnaś ca taddharmā

And one deficient in an ancillary component (aṅga, a subsidiary requisite of the rite) shares that same entitlement (taddharma) [i.e. is not thereby disqualified].

उत्पत्तौ नित्यसंयोगात्

utpattau nityasaṁyogāt

In respect of [the rite's] basic origination (utpatti), [entitlement follows] because of a constant/necessary connection (nityasaṁyoga).

अत्र्यार्षेयस्य हानं स्यात्

atryārṣeyasya hānaṁ syāt

There would be a forfeiture [of entitlement] for one belonging to the Ārṣeya-lineage (sage-lineage affiliation, ārṣeya, used to identify ritual/gotra descent) of Atri [or: for one lacking such lineage].

वचनाद् रथकारस्याधानेऽस्य सर्वशेषत्वात्

vacanād rathakārasyādhāne'sya sarvaśeṣatvāt

By Vedic statement, the rathakāra (chariot-maker, a mixed-caste artisan) [is entitled] in the fire-establishment, because this [person] is wholly subordinate/in service [to the twice-born, sarvaśeṣatva].

न्याय्यो वा कर्मसंयोगाच् छूद्रस्य प्रतिषिद्धतत्वात्

nyāyyo vā karmasaṁyogāc chūdrasya pratiṣiddhatatvāt

Or, it would be [logically] proper (nyāyya), from the connection with the ritual act, that the śūdra is [understood as] expressly prohibited [elsewhere].

अकर्मत्वात् तु नैवं स्यात्

akarmatvāt tu naivaṁ syāt

But because [what the śūdra does] is not [technically ritual] action (akarmatva), it would not be so [i.e. this reasoning does not properly hold].

आनर्थक्यं च संयोगात्

ānarthakyaṁ ca saṁyogāt

And there would be futility/pointlessness (ānarthakya), from [such a forced] connection.

गुणार्थेनेति चेत्

guṇārtheneti cet

If it be objected: '[This is stated] for the sake of a subsidiary purpose (guṇārtha)'...

उक्तम् अनिमित्तत्वम्

uktam animittatvam

It has [already] been stated that this is not the operative cause (animittatva, i.e. not the basis of the rule).

सौधन्वनास् तु हीनत्वान् मन्त्रवर्णात् प्रतीयेरन्

saudhanvanās tu hīnatvān mantravarṇāt pratīyeran

But the Saudhanvanas (descendants of Sudhanvan, a lineage of lower/mixed status) would be understood [as of inferior standing], because of [their] inferiority, from the wording of the [Vedic] mantra (mantravarṇa).

रथपतिर् निषादः स्याच् छब्दसामर्थ्यात्

rathapatir niṣādaḥ syāc chabdasāmarthyāt

'The lord of the chariot' (rathapati) would be understood as a Niṣāda (a low, mixed-caste hunter tribe), because of the force of the word (śabdasāmarthya).

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च

liṅgadarśanāc ca

And because of observing the [contextual] indicator (liṅga) [as well].

पुरुषार्थैकसिद्धित्वात् तस्य तस्याधिकारः स्यात्

puruṣārthaikasiddhitvāt tasya tasyādhikāraḥ syāt

Because [the ritual act] is accomplished solely for a human aim (puruṣārtha, the human end/purpose for whose sake an action is undertaken), entitlement to it belongs to that particular [agent who seeks that aim].

अपि चोत्पत्तिसंयोगो यथा स्यात् सत्वदर्यशनं तथाभावो विभागे स्यात्

api cotpattisaṁyogo yathā syāt satvadaryaśanaṁ tathābhāvo vibhāge syāt

And moreover, just as there would be a connection at [the rite's] origination [i.e. the substance's link to the act arises at that point] — [text uncertain at this point] — so likewise there would be a corresponding state in [the matter of] division/apportionment (vibhāga).

Note: The word सत्वदर्यशनं (satvadaryaśanam) in the source does not correspond to any recognizable Sanskrit word or compound; left unaltered as a genuine textual uncertainty rather than guessed at. The surrounding sutra (utpattisaṁyoga, tathābhāva, vibhāge syāt) is clear; the translation renders the unclear span with a bracketed best-effort approximation only. | The word 'सत्वदर्यशनं' (satvadaryaśanam) does not correspond to any recognizable Sanskrit word or compound; it may be a corruption of a form such as 'सत्त्वादर्शनम्' or similar, but I have not silently altered the sanskrit field. The surrounding words (utpattisaṁyoga, tathābhāva, vibhāge syāt) are clear; the translation of the unclear portion is a best-effort approximation only.

प्रयोगे पुरुषश्रुतेर् यथाकामी प्रयोगे स्यात्

prayoge puruṣaśruter yathākāmī prayoge syāt

In [the matter of] performance (prayoga), because of the Vedic mention of 'person', one who desires [may act] according to his own wish (yathākāmī) in the performance.

प्रत्यर्थं श्रुतिभाव इति चेत्

pratyarthaṁ śrutibhāva iti cet

If it be said: '[Each Vedic] text applies with reference to (prati) each particular object [purpose]'...

तादर्थ्ये न गुणार्थतानुक्तेऽर्थान्तरत्वात् कर्तुः प्रधानभूतत्वात्

tādarthye na guṇārthatānukte'rthāntaratvāt kartuḥ pradhānabhūtatvāt

In the case of being-for-another's-sake (tādarthya), this does not [hold], since a subsidiary purpose has not been stated [there] — because it concerns a different topic (arthāntara), [and] because the agent (kartṛ) is [here] the principal factor.

अपि वा कामसंयोगे सम्बन्धात् प्रयोगायोपदिश्येत प्रत्यर्थं हि विधिश्रुतिर् विषाणावत्

api vā kāmasaṁyoge sambandhāt prayogāyopadiśyeta pratyarthaṁ hi vidhiśrutir viṣāṇāvat

Or else, in connection with desire (kāma), because of the relation, it would be taught for the sake of performance; for indeed, the injunctive [Vedic] text applies distinctly to each object, like [each of] a pair of horns [each belonging separately to its own animal].

अन्यस्य स्याद् इति चेत्

anyasya syād iti cet

If it be said: 'It would belong to another [person]'...

अन्यार्थेनाभिसम्बन्धः

anyārthenābhisambandhaḥ

[No], the connection is for the sake of another (anyārtha).

फलकामो निमित्तम् इति चेत्

phalakāmo nimittam iti cet

If it be said: 'One who desires the fruit (phalakāma) is the operative cause (nimitta)'...

न नित्यत्वात्

na nityatvāt

No, because [the rite in question] is obligatory (nitya, to be performed constantly regardless of desire, as opposed to an optional/kāmya rite).

कर्म तथेति चेत्

karma tatheti cet

If it be said: 'The ritual action is likewise [dependent on desire]'...

न समवायात्

na samavāyāt

No, because of [its] inherence (samavāya, i.e. the act necessarily inheres in the qualified agent, independent of desire).

प्रक्रमात् तु नियम्येतारम्भस्य क्रियानिमित्तत्वात्

prakramāt tu niyamyetārambhasya kriyānimittatvāt

But from [the act's] commencement/sequence, it should be regulated, because the undertaking (ārambha) itself is the operative cause of the action.

Note: Source reads प्रकमात् (prakamāt), not a standard Sanskrit form. Corrected to प्रक्रमात् (prakramāt, 'from the commencement/sequence [of the rite]'), a plausible dropped-र् conjunct error, consistent with the sutra's own sense (ārambhasya kriyānimittatvāt, 'the commencement being the cause of the action'). Original reading noted here for the record. | The word 'प्रकमात्' (prakamāt) is not a standard Sanskrit form. Given the context ('ārambhasya kriyānimittatvāt' — the commencement being the cause of the action), it more plausibly reflects 'प्रक्रमात्' (prakramāt, 'from the sequence/commencement of the rite'). The sanskrit field is left unaltered per instructions; the translation above follows this likely reading as a best-effort rendering.

फलार्थित्वाद् वानियमो यथानुपक्रान्ते

phalārthitvād vāniyamo yathānupakrānte

Or, because of desiring the fruit, there would be non-restriction (aniyama), just as in the case of what has not [yet] been commenced (anupakrānta).

नियमो वा तन्निमित्तत्वात् कर्तुस् तत्कारणं स्यात्

niyamo vā tannimittatvāt kartus tatkāraṇaṁ syāt

Or, there would be restriction (niyama), because that [factor] is the operative cause; it would thus be the [determining] cause for the agent.

लोके कर्माणि वेदवत् ततोऽधिपुरुषज्ञानम्

loke karmāṇi vedavat tato'dhipuruṣajñānam

Worldly actions (loke karmāṇi) are like Vedic ones; from that [analogy], there arises knowledge of the presiding agent [i.e. of who is qualified].

अपराधेऽपि च तैः शास्त्रम्

aparādhe'pi ca taiḥ śāstram

And even in the case of an offense/transgression (aparādha), the scriptural rule [operates] through those same [agents/means].

अशास्त्रात् तूपसम्प्राप्तिः शास्त्रं स्यान् न प्रकल्पकं तस्माद् अर्थेन गम्येताप्राप्ते शास्त्रम् अर्थवत्

aśāstrāt tūpasamprāptiḥ śāstraṁ syān na prakalpakaṁ tasmād arthena gamyetāprāpte śāstram arthavat

But there is [natural] attainment from what is outside scripture (aśāstra); scripture is not the deviser/originator [of that]; therefore it is to be understood through [its own] purport — where a thing is not [otherwise] attained, scripture is meaningful/purposive (arthavat) [i.e. scriptural injunction matters precisely where the goal is not otherwise reachable].

प्रतिषेधेष्व् अकर्मत्वात् क्रिया स्यात् प्रतिषिद्धानां विभक्तत्वाद् अकर्मणाम्

pratiṣedheṣv akarmatvāt kriyā syāt pratiṣiddhānāṁ vibhaktatvād akarmaṇām

In [the case of] prohibitions (pratiṣedha, a Vedic bar against an action), because [what is barred] is not [itself a prescribed positive] action, there would [nonetheless] be an activity — since the prohibited things that are non-actions are [still] distinctly specified.

शास्त्राणां त्व् अर्थवत्वेन पुरुषार्थो विधीयते तयोर् असमवायित्वात् तादर्थ्ये विध्यतिक्रमः

śāstrāṇāṁ tv arthavatvena puruṣārtho vidhīyate tayor asamavāyitvāt tādarthye vidhyatikramaḥ

But since the scriptures are meaningful/purposive (arthavattva), the human aim is [thereby] enjoined; because the two [scripture and human aim] do not inhere in one another, in the matter of being-for-another's-sake there is a transgression of the injunction.

तस्मिंस् तु शिष्यमाणानि जननेन प्रवर्तेरन्

tasmiṁs tu śiṣyamāṇāni jananena pravarteran

But regarding that matter, the [remaining] things being taught would proceed by [natural] birth/origination (janana), [not requiring separate injunction].

अपि वा वेदतुल्यत्वाद् उपायेन प्रवर्तेरन्

api vā vedatulyatvād upāyena pravarteran

Or else, because of being equal in status to the Veda, they would proceed by [some indirect] means (upāya).

अभ्यासोऽकर्मशेषत्वात् पुरुषार्थो विधीयते

abhyāso'karmaśeṣatvāt puruṣārtho vidhīyate

Repeated practice (abhyāsa), because it is not a subordinate part of the [main] ritual action, is enjoined as a human aim in its own right.

तस्मिन्न् असम्भवन्न् अर्थात्

tasminn asambhavann arthāt

In that regard, [where something] is not possible, [it is understood] from the purport (implication).

न कालेभ्य उपदिश्यन्ते

na kālebhya upadiśyante

They (certain rites) are not taught with reference to [specific] times.

दर्शनात् काललिङ्गानां कालविधानम्

darśanāt kālaliṅgānāṁ kālavidhānam

From observing temporal indicators (kālaliṅga, markers suggesting a time), there is a prescription of time.

तेषाम् औत्पत्तिकत्वाद् आगमेन प्रवर्तेत

teṣām autpattikatvād āgamena pravarteta

Because of their being innate/primordial (autpattika, self-existent from the outset), they would proceed by tradition (āgama, transmitted teaching) [rather than by fresh Vedic injunction].

तथा हि लिङ्गदर्शनम्

tathā hi liṅgadarśanam

For indeed, that is [confirmed by] the observation of the [contextual] indicator.

तथान्तःक्रतुप्रयुक्तानि

tathāntaḥkratuprayuktāni

Likewise, [there are certain elements] employed within the [main] sacrifice (antaḥkratu).

आचाराद् गृह्यमाणेषु तथा स्यात् पुरुषार्थत्वात्

ācārād gṛhyamāṇeṣu tathā syāt puruṣārthatvāt

In respect of things adopted from customary practice (ācāra, established conduct/tradition), it would be likewise, because of [their] being a human aim.

ब्राह्मणस्य तु सोमविद्याप्रजम् ऋणवाक्येन संयोगात्

brāhmaṇasya tu somavidyāprajam ṛṇavākyena saṁyogāt

But for the brāhmaṇa, [there is the threefold matter of] the Soma-sacrifice, [Vedic] learning, and progeny, through connection with the statement about the [three] debts (ṛṇa, debt — the three debts a person, especially a brāhmaṇa, is born owing: to the gods, discharged by sacrifice; to the sages, discharged by Vedic study; and to the ancestors, discharged by begetting offspring).

सर्वशक्तौ प्रवृत्तिः स्यात् तथाभूतोपदेशात्

sarvaśaktau pravṛttiḥ syāt tathābhūtopadeśāt

When a sacrificer (yajamāna) is capable of performing the whole rite, his engagement (pravṛtti) extends to the whole, because the scriptural injunction teaches the rite as being of that very nature — a single, undivided whole.

अपि वाप्य् एकदेशे स्यात् प्रधाने ह्य् अर्थनिर्वृत्तिर् गुणमात्रम् इतरत् तदर्थत्वात्

api vāpy ekadeśe syāt pradhāne hy arthanirvṛttir guṇamātram itarat tadarthatvāt

Or, alternatively [the objection runs], engagement may extend to only a part (ekadeśa) of the rite, for it is the primary element (pradhāna) that accomplishes the purpose; the rest is merely subordinate (guṇa, a secondary or accessory element), since it exists only for the sake of that primary element.

तदकर्मणि च दोषस् तस्मात् ततो विशेषः स्यात् प्रधानेनाभिसम्बन्धात्

tadakarmaṇi ca doṣas tasmāt tato viśeṣaḥ syāt pradhānenābhisambandhāt

And there is a fault in treating that subordinate element as no act at all; therefore it still retains a distinct status of its own, by virtue of its connection with the primary element.

कर्माभेदं तु जैमिनिः प्रयोगवचनैकत्वात् सर्वेषाम् उपदेशः स्याद् इति

karmābhedaṁ tu jaiminiḥ prayogavacanaikatvāt sarveṣām upadeśaḥ syād iti

But Jaimini holds that the act is undivided (one), because the statement prescribing its performance is a single, unitary statement; hence the teaching applies to all its parts together, as one act.

अर्थस्य व्यपवर्गित्वाद् एकस्यापि प्रयोगे स्याद् यथा क्रत्वन्तरेषु

arthasya vyapavargitvād ekasyāpi prayoge syād yathā kratvantareṣu

Since the purpose (artha, the result) constitutes a single completed whole, even one performer alone may be engaged in the entire rite, just as happens in other sacrifices (kratu).

विध्यपराधे च दर्शनात् समाप्तेः

vidhyaparādhe ca darśanāt samāpteḥ

And this is confirmed also because, even where there is a lapse against the injunction, the rite is nonetheless observed to reach completion (samāpti).

प्रायश्चित्तविधानाच् च

prāyaścittavidhānāc ca

And also because expiation (prāyaścitta, an atoning rite prescribed to remedy a ritual defect) is separately enjoined for such a lapse.

काम्येषु चैवम् अर्थित्वात्

kāmyeṣu caivam arthitvāt

And likewise, in optional (kāmya) rites — those performed for a desired result rather than as an obligatory duty — this holds too, because of the sacrificer's desire for the result.

असंयोगात् तु नैवं स्याद् विधेः शब्दप्रमाणत्वात्

asaṁyogāt tu naivaṁ syād vidheḥ śabdapramāṇatvāt

But where there is no such connection with a desired result, this would not hold, because the injunction's sole authority rests on the scriptural word (śabda).

अकर्मणि चाप्रत्यवायात्

akarmaṇi cāpratyavāyāt

And also because, when the act is not obligatory, there is no resulting fault or detriment (pratyavāya) in leaving it unperformed.

क्रियाणाम् आश्रितत्वाद् द्रव्यान्तरे विभागः स्यात्

kriyāṇām āśritatvād dravyāntare vibhāgaḥ syāt

Since the ritual acts (kriyā) are dependent on their material substance, there would be a division of the rite whenever a different substance (dravya, the material offered or used) is involved.

अपि वाव्यतिरेकाद् रूपशब्दाविभागाच् च गोत्ववद् ऐककर्म्यं स्यान् नामधेयं च सत्त्ववत्

api vāvyatirekād rūpaśabdāvibhāgāc ca gotvavad aikakarmyaṁ syān nāmadheyaṁ ca sattvavat

Or alternatively, because of their non-difference, and because form and designation remain undivided, there is unity of the act (aikakarmya), just as the universal 'cowness' (gotva) remains one across instances; and likewise its name remains one, as does the category of being (sattva).

श्रुतिप्रमाणत्वाच् छिष्टाभावेऽनागमोऽन्यस्याशिष्टत्वात्

śrutipramāṇatvāc chiṣṭābhāve'nāgamo'nyasyāśiṣṭatvāt

Because scripture (śruti) alone is the authority here: in the absence of an explicit teaching on the point, no additional tradition (āgama) is to be assumed, since anything other than what is taught would be unsanctioned (unattested by the learned, aśiṣṭa).

क्वचिद् विधानाच् च

kvacid vidhānāc ca

And also because, in some particular cases, there is an explicit injunction on the point.

आगमो वा चोदनार्थाविशेषात्

āgamo vā codanārthāviśeṣāt

Or, alternatively, one may hold that tradition (āgama) is valid here too, since there is no difference in the purport of the injunction (codanā) either way.

नियमार्थः क्वाचिद् विधिः

niyamārthaḥ kvācid vidhiḥ

In some cases, the injunction serves merely a restrictive purpose (niyama) — narrowing down among options already otherwise available, rather than establishing something wholly new.

तन् नित्यं तच्चिकीर्षा हि

tan nityaṁ taccikīrṣā hi

That restrictive rule is constant (nitya, applying without exception), for there is an abiding intention to perform the act in just that manner.

न देवताग्निशब्दक्रियमन्यार्थसंयोगात्

na devatāgniśabdakriyamanyārthasaṁyogāt

Not so, however, regarding the deity, the sacred fire, the ritual utterance, and the act — because in these cases there is a connection with a different purpose in each instance.

देवतायां च तदर्थत्वात्

devatāyāṁ ca tadarthatvāt

And, in the case of the deity, this holds because the deity exists for the sake of that particular rite's purpose.

प्रतिषिद्धं चाविशेषेण हि तच्छ्रुतिः

pratiṣiddhaṁ cāviśeṣeṇa hi tacchrutiḥ

And it is in fact prohibited, without exception — for that is precisely what scripture states.

तथा स्वामिनः फलसमवायात् फलस्य कर्मयोगित्वात्

tathā svāminaḥ phalasamavāyāt phalasya karmayogitvāt

Likewise, ownership belongs to the sacrificer, because the fruit (phala, the ritual result) inheres in the owner (svāmin — the patron who commissions and owns the sacrifice), the fruit being inseparably bound up with the act.

बहूनां तु प्रवृत्तेऽन्यमागमयेद् अवैगुण्यात्

bahūnāṁ tu pravṛtte'nyamāgamayed avaiguṇyāt

But when many persons are jointly engaged in the rite, one may extend entitlement to another participant as well, since there is no defect in doing so.

स स्वामी स्यात् संयोगात्

sa svāmī syāt saṁyogāt

He becomes the owner of the rite, by virtue of his connection with it.

कर्मकरो वा भृतत्वात्

karmakaro vā bhṛtatvāt

Or, alternatively, he is regarded as a mere hired workman (karmakara), since he is only engaged for wages.

तस्मिंश् च फलदर्शनात्

tasmiṁś ca phaladarśanāt

And also because the ritual fruit is observed to accrue to him.

स तद्धर्मा स्यात् कर्मसंयोगात्

sa taddharmā syāt karmasaṁyogāt

He too comes to possess that same ritual status, by virtue of his connection with the act.

सामान्यं तच्चिकीर्षा हि

sāmānyaṁ taccikīrṣā hi

That status is common, shared equally by all participants, for the intention to perform the rite is equally present in each of them.

निर्देशात् तु विकल्पे यत् प्रवृत्तम्

nirdeśāt tu vikalpe yat pravṛttam

But according to the text's specific designation, in the case of an option between alternatives, it is whichever one is actually undertaken that counts.

अशब्दम् इति चेत्

aśabdam iti cet

If it be objected: 'But such a choice is without verbal (scriptural) authority'—

नानङ्गत्वात्

nānaṅgatvāt

Not so — because it is not devoid of the status of being a genuine constituent member (aṅga) of the act.

वचनाच् चान्याय्यम् अभावे तत्सामान्येन प्रतिनिधिर् अभावाद् इतरस्य

vacanāc cānyāyyam abhāve tatsāmānyena pratinidhir abhāvād itarasya

And, by virtue of an explicit scriptural statement, what would otherwise be improper becomes valid: in the absence of the prescribed substance or agent, a substitute (pratinidhi, a stand-in permitted when the prescribed item is unavailable) may serve on the basis of its generic resemblance to it, since the original item is simply unavailable.

न प्रतिनिधौ समत्वात्

na pratinidhau samatvāt

There is no difference in the case of a substitute, since it is treated as equal in status to the original.

स्याच् छ्रुतिलक्षणे नियतत्वात्

syāc chrutilakṣaṇe niyatatvāt

But such substitution holds only where it is directly indicated by scriptural text, since there alone it is fixed and determined by that text.

न तदीप्सा हि

na tadīpsā hi

Not so otherwise, for there is no independent desire for that substitute item itself.

मुख्याधिगमे मुख्यम् आगमो हि तदभावात्

mukhyādhigame mukhyam āgamo hi tadabhāvāt

When the principal (mukhya, the originally prescribed item) is obtainable, the principal alone must be used; for recourse to a substitute applies only in its absence.

प्रवृत्तेऽपीति चेत्

pravṛtte'pīti cet

If it be objected: 'But even when the rite is already underway, does the same rule still apply?'—

Note: Source reads प्रबृत्तेऽपीति (prabṛtte'pīti) with ब्, not व्. Corrected to प्रवृत्तेऽपीति (pravṛtte'pīti, 'if [it be objected that], [the rite] having already commenced...'), a ब/व transcription slip -- the identical participle appears as pravṛtti-/pravṛtte/pravṛttam with व् elsewhere in this same pada (sutras 6.3.1, 6.3.5, 6.3.22, 6.3.28). Original reading noted here for the record. | Transliteration/Devanagari show 'प्रबृत्तेऽपीति / prabṛtte'pīti' with ब् (ba) where the expected form, matching the identical participle used elsewhere in this same pada (sutras 1, 5, 22, 28: pravṛtti-/pravṛtte/pravṛttam, all with व्), is 'प्रवृत्तेऽपि / pravṛtte'pi' (व, va) — likely a ba/va transcription slip. Translated on the assumption it is pravṛtte ('[the rite] having commenced').

नानर्थकत्वात्

nānarthakatvāt

Not so — because otherwise substitution here would be pointless.

द्रव्यसंस्कारविरोधे द्रव्यं तदर्थत्वात्

dravyasaṁskāravirodhe dravyaṁ tadarthatvāt

When there is a conflict between the substance and its prescribed preparation (saṁskāra, a purificatory or preparatory process), priority goes to the substance, since the preparation exists only for its sake.

अर्थद्रव्यविरोधेऽर्थो द्रव्याभावे तदुत्पत्तेर् द्रव्याणाम् अर्थशेषत्वात्

arthadravyavirodhe'rtho dravyābhāve tadutpatter dravyāṇām arthaśeṣatvāt

When there is a conflict between the purpose (artha, the ritual aim) and the substance, priority goes to the purpose, because that purpose can still be accomplished even without that particular substance — substances being merely subordinate (śeṣa, standing in a 'remainder' relation) to the purpose.

विधिर् अप्य् एकदेशे स्यात्

vidhir apy ekadeśe syāt

The injunction, too, may apply to only a part of the rite rather than to the whole.

अपि वार्थस्य शक्यत्वाद् एकदेशेन निर्वर्तेतार्थानाम् अविभक्तत्वाद् गुणमात्रम् इतरत् तदर्थत्वात्

api vārthasya śakyatvād ekadeśena nirvartetārthānām avibhaktatvād guṇamātram itarat tadarthatvāt

Or, alternatively, since the purpose is achievable even so, it may be accomplished by only a part, because the purposes themselves are undivided, forming one whole; the rest remains merely subordinate, since it exists for the sake of that purpose.

शेषाद् द्व्यवदाननाशे स्यात् तदर्थत्वात्

śeṣād dvyavadānanāśe syāt tadarthatvāt

Regarding the remainder (śeṣa — the leftover portion after the offering-shares are cut): when one of the two offering-portions (avadāna, a cut or share of the sacrificial substance) is lost, the rule of the remainder still applies, because it serves that same purpose.

निर्देशाद् वान्यद् आगमयेत्

nirdeśād vānyad āgamayet

Or, on the basis of scripture's specific designation, a different rule should be inferred instead.

अपि वा शेषभाजां स्याद् विशिष्टकारणत्वात्

api vā śeṣabhājāṁ syād viśiṣṭakāraṇatvāt

Or, alternatively, it would belong to the sharers of the remainder (those entitled to partake of what remains), because they constitute a distinguishing cause in the rite.

निर्देशाच् छेषभक्षोऽन्यैः प्रधानवत्

nirdeśāc cheṣabhakṣo'nyaiḥ pradhānavat

According to scriptural designation, the eating of the remainder by others besides the sacrificer proceeds in the same manner as with the primary performer.

सर्वैर् वा समवायात् स्यात्

sarvair vā samavāyāt syāt

Or, alternatively, it would be shared by all participants, on account of their joint inherent connection (samavāya) with the rite.

निर्देशस्य गुणार्थत्वम्

nirdeśasya guṇārthatvam

That scriptural designation serves only a subordinate purpose (guṇārtha) — a descriptive function, not a restrictive one.

प्रधाने श्रुतिलक्षणम्

pradhāne śrutilakṣaṇam

In the case of the primary element (pradhāna), it is scripture's own explicit statement that is the decisive indicator.

अर्थवद् इति चेत्

arthavad iti cet

If it be objected: 'But this designation is meaningful in its own right'—

न चोदनाविरोधात्

na codanāvirodhāt

Not so — because such a reading would conflict with the governing injunction (codanā).

अर्थसमवायत् प्रायश्चित्तम् एकदेशेऽपि

arthasamavāyat prāyaścittam ekadeśe'pi

Because the defect's connection is only with a particular purpose or element, expiation is prescribed even when just a part of the rite is vitiated.

न त्व् अशेषे वैगुण्यात् तदर्थं हि

na tv aśeṣe vaiguṇyāt tadarthaṁ hi

But not when the defect vitiates the entire rite without remainder, because expiation exists only for that more limited, partial purpose.

स्याद् वा प्राप्तनिमित्तत्वाद् अतद्धर्मो नित्यसंयोगान् न हितस्य गुणार्थेनानित्यत्वात्

syād vā prāptanimittatvād ataddharmo nityasaṁyogān na hitasya guṇārthenānityatvāt

Or, alternatively, expiation may apply even then, because its occasioning cause (nimitta) has already arisen; yet it does not possess that same (permanent) character, since its connection is only a fixed, one-time one — unlike what is enjoined as beneficial, which becomes impermanent only through a subordinate purpose.

गुणानां च परार्थत्वाद् वचनाद् व्यपाश्रय स्यात्

guṇānāṁ ca parārthatvād vacanād vyapāśraya syāt

And since subordinate elements (guṇa) exist for the sake of another — the primary element — a separate reliance follows from the specific scriptural statement.

भेदार्थम् इति

bhedārtham iti

This serves the purpose of establishing a distinction — so it is held.

न शेषभूतत्वात्

na śeṣabhūtatvāt

Not so, because it has the character of being merely subordinate (śeṣa-bhūta, standing in a 'remainder' relation to the primary).

अनर्थकश् च सर्वनाशे स्यात्

anarthakaś ca sarvanāśe syāt

And such a rule would also be pointless in the case of total destruction of the offering-substance.

क्षामे तु सर्वदाहे स्याद् एकदेशस्यावर्जनीयत्वात्

kṣāme tu sarvadāhe syād ekadeśasyāvarjanīyatvāt

But in the case of something merely scorched (kṣāma), the rule would still apply even where the burning is total, because some part inevitably remains — it cannot but be so.

दर्शनाद् एकदेशे स्यात्

darśanād ekadeśe syāt

Because this is precisely what is observed in practice, the rule applies only to a part.

अन्येन वैतच् छास्त्राद् धि कारणप्राप्तिः

anyena vaitac chāstrād dhi kāraṇaprāptiḥ

Or, alternatively, this requirement might be fulfilled by another means as well, for the prescribed cause is in any case obtained through scripture.

तद्धविःशब्दान् नेति चेत्

taddhaviḥśabdān neti cet

If it be objected: 'Not so, because the term "havis" (the oblation-substance) is used with reference to it'—

स्याद् अन्यायत्वादिज्यागामी हविः शब्दस् तल्लिङ्गसंयोगात्

syād anyāyatvādijyāgāmī haviḥ śabdas talliṅgasaṁyogāt

It would still apply — since otherwise it would be improper; the word 'havis' in fact applies to the sacrificial offering-act itself, by virtue of its connection with that contextual indicator (liṅga, a textual sign pointing to a particular meaning).

यथाश्रुतीति चेत्

yathāśrutīti cet

If it be objected: 'The word should be taken exactly as it is literally stated in scripture'—

न तल्लक्षणत्वाद् उपपातो हि कारणम्

na tallakṣaṇatvād upapāto hi kāraṇam

Not so — because that word functions merely as an indicator (lakṣaṇa) of it; the actual determining cause is the circumstance (upapāta) itself.

होमाभिषवभक्षणं च तद्वत्

homābhiṣavabhakṣaṇaṁ ca tadvat

And the rites of oblation (homa), Soma-pressing (abhiṣava), and eating (bhakṣaṇa) are likewise treated in that same way.

उभाभ्यां वा न हि तयोर् धर्मशास्त्रम्

ubhābhyāṁ vā na hi tayor dharmaśāstram

Or, alternatively, it may be accomplished by both together, for there is no separate ritual rule governing the two taken individually.

पुनर् आधेयम् ओदनवत्

punar ādheyam odanavat

It is to be offered again, just as is done with rice-gruel (odana).

द्रव्योत्पत्तेर् वोभयोः स्यात्

dravyotpatter vobhayoḥ syāt

Or, since the substance is freshly produced again, the rule would apply to both cases.

पञ्चशरावस् तु द्रव्यश्रुतेः प्रतिनिधिः स्यात्

pañcaśarāvas tu dravyaśruteḥ pratinidhiḥ syāt

But an offering in five potsherds (pañca-śarāva, five small earthen dishes) may serve as a substitute for the substance otherwise specified in scripture.

चोदना वा द्रव्यदेवताविधिर् अवाच्ये हि

codanā vā dravyadevatāvidhir avācye hi

Or, alternatively, the general injunction governing substance and deity applies, since specific provision cannot be stated for every unaddressed case.

स प्रत्यामनेत् स्थानात्

sa pratyāmanet sthānāt

He should restore it, bringing it back from its proper place.

अङ्गविधिर् वा निमित्तसंयोगात्

aṅgavidhir vā nimittasaṁyogāt

Or, alternatively, this is a rule concerning a subordinate element (aṅga), by virtue of its connection with the occasioning circumstance (nimitta).

विश्वजित्वप्रवृत्ते भावः कर्मणि स्यात्

viśvajitvapravṛtte bhāvaḥ karmaṇi syāt

When one is engaged in the Viśvajit rite (a sacrifice in which the sacrificer gives away all his property), the determining reality lies in the act itself.

निष्क्रयवादाच् च

niṣkrayavādāc ca

And also because there is a scriptural statement concerning redemption/exchange (niṣkraya — a price or substitute given in lieu of a thing).

वत्ससंयोगे व्रतचोदना स्यात्

vatsasaṁyoge vratacodanā syāt

Where a calf (vatsa) is involved, there is a corresponding injunction of ritual observance (vrata).

कालो वोत्पन्नसंयोगाद् यथोक्तस्य

kālo votpannasaṁyogād yathoktasya

Or, alternatively, this is a matter of time, because the connection arises only once the calf is born, with respect to what has been so stated.

अर्थापरिमाणाच् च

arthāparimāṇāc ca

And also because the purpose in question is not strictly delimited.

वत्सस् तु श्रुतिसंयोगात् तदङ्गं स्यात्

vatsas tu śrutisaṁyogāt tadaṅgaṁ syāt

But the calf, because of its connection as stated in scripture, would itself be a subsidiary member of that rite.

कालस् तु स्याद् अचोदनात्

kālas tu syād acodanāt

But time alone would be decisive here, since there is no separate injunction making the calf a required member in its own right.

अनर्थकश् च कर्मसंयोगे

anarthakaś ca karmasaṁyoge

And treating the calf as a member merely on account of its incidental connection with the act would also be pointless.

अवचनाच् च स्वशब्दस्य

avacanāc ca svaśabdasya

And also because there is no explicit statement using its own specific term.

कालश् चेत् सन्नयत्पक्षे तल्लिङ्गसंयोगात्

kālaś cet sannayatpakṣe talliṅgasaṁyogāt

If the determining factor is time, then, on the view of the calf being led up near the rite, this follows because of that time's connection with its textual indicator (liṅga).

कालार्थत्वाद् वोभयोः प्रतीयेत

kālārthatvād vobhayoḥ pratīyeta

Or, since it serves the purpose of indicating time, it may be understood to apply to both alternatives.

प्रस्तरे शाखाश्रयणवत्

prastare śākhāśrayaṇavat

As with the prastara (a bundle of sacrificial grass serving as a ritual seat/implement), where usage follows one's own Vedic branch (śākhā) or recension.

कालविधिर् वोभयोर् विद्यामानत्वात्

kālavidhir vobhayor vidyāmānatvāt

Or, alternatively, this is a rule of time, since the requirement is equally present in both cases.

अतत्संस्कारार्थत्वाच् च

atatsaṁskārārthatvāc ca

And also because this element does not exist for the purpose of that specific ritual preparation (saṁskāra).

तस्माच् च विप्रयोगे स्यात्

tasmāc ca viprayoge syāt

And therefore the rule would still apply even in a case where the elements are separated (viprayoga, disjoined) from one another.

उपवेषश् च पक्षे स्यात्

upaveṣaś ca pakṣe syāt

And, on that view, a period of residing nearby or waiting (upaveśa) would also be required.

अभ्युदये कालापराधाद् इज्याचोदना स्याद् यथा पञ्चशरावे

abhyudaye kālāparādhād ijyācodanā syād yathā pañcaśarāve

In an abhyudaya rite (one performed for prosperity/elevation), if there is a lapse of the proper time (kālāparādha), the injunction to sacrifice (ijyā-codanā) still holds — as in the case of the pañcaśarāva (an oblation offered in five earthen shards).

अपनयो वा विद्यानत्वात्

apanayo vā vidyānatvāt

Or, alternatively, the material should simply be withdrawn/set aside (apanaya), since no [further] injunction (vidhāna) prescribing its continued use is found.

तद्रूपत्वाच् च शब्दानाम्

tadrūpatvāc ca śabdānām

And because the mantras (words, śabda) retain the very form suited to that [original] occasion [and so are not fit for a later one].

आतञ्चनाभ्यासस्य दर्शनात्

ātañcanābhyāsasya darśanāt

Because a precedent of repeated practice of ātañcana (re-spreading/re-preparing the material) is observed [elsewhere].

अपूर्वत्वाद् विधानं स्यात्

apūrvatvād vidhānaṁ syāt

Since this [repetition] is apūrva (not otherwise established, a genuinely new matter), a separate injunction (vidhāna) for it is required.

पयोदोषात् पञ्चशरावेऽदुष्टं हीतरत्

payodoṣāt pañcaśarāve'duṣṭaṁ hītarat

In the pañcaśarāva [offering], the defect arises only from a flaw in the milk (payas); the other element indeed remains unblemished.

सान्नाय्योऽपि तथेति चेत्

sānnāyyo'pi tatheti cet

If it be objected that the sānnāyya (an oblation of curdled-milk mixture) is likewise [affected by the same defect]...

न तस्यादुष्टत्वाद् अविशिष्टं हि कारणम्

na tasyāduṣṭatvād aviśiṣṭaṁ hi kāraṇam

No — because that sānnāyya is not defective; for its material cause is undifferentiated (its constituents cannot be separated out to isolate a flaw).

लक्षणार्थाश्रुतिः

lakṣaṇārthāśrutiḥ

This Vedic text (śruti) serves only to state a defining mark (lakṣaṇa), not to lay down an independent injunction.

उपांशुयाजेऽवचनाद् यथाप्रकृति

upāṁśuyāje'vacanād yathāprakṛti

In the upāṁśu sacrifice (an oblation performed inaudibly), since no specific contrary statement exists, [the procedure] follows the prakṛti (the archetypal model rite).

अपनयो वा प्रवृत्या यथेतरेषाम्

apanayo vā pravṛtyā yathetareṣām

Or, withdrawal (apanaya) occurs through the [rite's] natural proceeding (pravṛtti), as with the other elements.

निरुप्ते स्यात् तत्संयोगात्

nirupte syāt tatsaṁyogāt

When the material has been formally set out (nirupta), withdrawal occurs because of its connection with that act.

प्रवृत्ते वा प्रापणान् निमित्तस्य

pravṛtte vā prāpaṇān nimittasya

Or, once the rite has begun (pravṛtta), [withdrawal follows] on account of the arrival of the occasioning cause (nimitta).

लक्षणमात्रम् इतरत्

lakṣaṇamātram itarat

The other term is a mere descriptive mark (lakṣaṇa), not an independent injunction.

तथा चान्यार्थदर्शनम्

tathā cānyārthadarśanam

And a precedent is also observed of that term being used for a different purpose.

अनिरुप्तेऽभ्युदिते प्राकृतीभ्यो निर्वपेद् इत्य् आश्मरथ्यस् तण्डुलभूतेष्व् अपनयात्

anirupte'bhyudite prākṛtībhyo nirvaped ity āśmarathyas taṇḍulabhūteṣv apanayāt

'When the material has not yet been formally set out (anirupta) but the auspicious occasion (abhyudaya) has already arrived, one should offer from the prākṛtī (the standard, model materials)' — so holds the teacher Āśmarathya (an ancient Mīmāṁsā authority), since withdrawal (apanaya) applies only to the rice-grains (taṇḍula) that have already become ritual matter.

व्यूर्ध्वभाग्भ्यस् त्व् आलेखनस् तत्कारित्वाद् देवतापनयस्य

vyūrdhvabhāgbhyas tv ālekhanas tatkāritvād devatāpanayasya

But with respect to portions already divided out and marked (for the several deities), it is the act of ālekhana (ritual demarcation/marking) that performs the withdrawal, since it is this marking that effects the withdrawal of the deity's claim [on the unmarked remainder].

विनिरुप्ते न मुष्टीनाम् अपनयस् तद्गुणत्वात्

vinirupte na muṣṭīnām apanayas tadguṇatvāt

When the material has been fully set out (vinirupta), there is no withdrawal of the handfuls (muṣṭi), since they are subordinate (guṇa) to that principal substance.

अप्राकृतेन हि संयोगस् तत्स्थानीयत्वात्

aprākṛtena hi saṁyogas tatsthānīyatvāt

For the connection [in this instance] is with the non-standard element (aprākṛta), since it stands as a substitute (tatsthānīya) in place of the original.

अभावाच् चेतरस्य स्यात्

abhāvāc cetarasya syāt

And [the rule] would hold on account of the absence of the other [alternative].

सान्नाय्यसंयोगान् नासन्नायतः स्यात्

sānnāyyasaṁyogān nāsannāyataḥ syāt

Owing to its connection with the sānnāyya, it would not derive from something that is not of the nature of sānnāyya.

औषधसंयोगाद् वोभयोः

auṣadhasaṁyogād vobhayoḥ

Or, on account of connection with the herbal/plant substance (auṣadha), the rule applies to both.

वैगुण्यान् नेति चेत्

vaiguṇyān neti cet

If it be objected, 'No — because there is a defect (vaiguṇya)'...

नातत्संस्कारत्वात्

nātatsaṁskāratvāt

No — because this act does not constitute the saṁskāra (preparatory purification/refinement) of that substance.

साम्युत्थाने विश्वजित्क्रीते विभागसंयोगात्

sāmyutthāne viśvajitkrīte vibhāgasaṁyogāt

In a case of equal/simultaneous arising (sāmyutthāna), in the Viśvajit sacrifice — called 'purchased' (krīta) because the sacrificer gives away all his wealth for it — [the rule follows] because of the connection with division/apportionment (vibhāga).

प्रवृते वा प्रापणान् निमित्तस्य

pravṛte vā prāpaṇān nimittasya

Or, once the rite has commenced, [the rule follows] because of the attainment of the occasioning cause (nimitta).

आदेशार्थेतरा श्रुतिः

ādeśārthetarā śrutiḥ

This Vedic text (śruti) serves a purpose other than that of issuing a direct order (ādeśa).

दीक्षापरिमाणे यथाकाम्यविशेषात्

dīkṣāparimāṇe yathākāmyaviśeṣāt

As regards the duration of the dīkṣā (the ritual consecration by which the sacrificer is prepared for the rite), the matter is settled according to the particular optional provision (yathākāmya-viśeṣa) laid down for each rite.

द्वादशाहस् तु लिङ्गात् स्यात्

dvādaśāhas tu liṅgāt syāt

But in the case of the dvādaśāha (the twelve-day sacrificial rite), the rule is determined from an indicatory sign (liṅga).

पौर्णमास्याम् अनियमोऽविशेषात्

paurṇamāsyām aniyamo'viśeṣāt

Regarding the full-moon (paurṇamāsī) timing, there is no fixed rule, since no distinguishing feature is found.

आनन्तर्यात् तु चैत्री स्यात्

ānantaryāt tu caitrī syāt

But, because of immediate proximity (ānantarya), it would be the chaitrī [full moon, i.e. that of the month Caitra].

माघी वैकाष्टकाश्रुतेः

māghī vaikāṣṭakāśruteḥ

[Or] the māghī [full moon of the month Māgha], on account of the Vedic statement concerning the aṣṭakā (a particular ancestral-offering observance).

अन्या अपीति चेत्

anyā apīti cet

If it be objected that other full-moon occasions would also apply...

न भक्तित्वाद् एषा हि लोके

na bhaktitvād eṣā hi loke

No — because this is a case of bhakti (a secondary, figurative reference rather than the primary sense), for such usage is current in common parlance (loka).

दीक्षापराधे चानुग्रहात्

dīkṣāparādhe cānugrahāt

And in the case of a lapse concerning the dīkṣā, [the matter is resolved] because of anugraha (a supporting/compensatory provision).

उत्थाने चानुप्ररोहात्

utthāne cānuprarohāt

And with regard to utthāna (the concluding, 'rising up' rite), [the same rule follows] because of anuproroha (a renewed sprouting/continuation).

अस्यां च सर्वलिङ्गानि

asyāṁ ca sarvaliṅgāni

And on this occasion, all the indicatory signs (liṅga) converge together.

दीक्षाकालस्य शिष्टत्वाद् अतिक्रमे नियतानाम् अनुत्कर्षः प्राप्तकालत्वात्

dīkṣākālasya śiṣṭatvād atikrame niyatānām anutkarṣaḥ prāptakālatvāt

Since the time for dīkṣā is expressly taught (śiṣṭa), if that time is transgressed, there is no advancement/precedence (utkarṣa) for the fixed (niyata) component rites, because each already has its own proper time already obtained (prāptakāla).

उत्कर्षो वा दीक्षितत्वाद् अविशिष्टं हि कारणम्

utkarṣo vā dīkṣitatvād aviśiṣṭaṁ hi kāraṇam

Or, there would be advancement/precedence (utkarṣa), on the ground of having already been consecrated (dīkṣitatva) — since the underlying reason is, in both cases, undifferentiated (aviśiṣṭa).

तत्र प्रतिहोमो न विद्यते यथा पूर्वेषाम्

tatra pratihomo na vidyate yathā pūrveṣām

There, a repeated fire-oblation (pratihoma; homa = a fire-offering) does not exist, just as in the earlier analogous cases.

कालप्राधान्याच् च

kālaprādhānyāc ca

And also because of the predominance of time (kāla) [in such rites].

प्रतिषेधाच् चोर्ध्वम् अवभृथादेष्टे

pratiṣedhāc cordhvam avabhṛthādeṣṭe

And, because of a prohibition (pratiṣedha), [this applies] after the avabhṛtha (the concluding purificatory bath) — in respect of one lacking further direction.

प्रतिहोमश् चेत् सायम् अग्निहोत्रप्रभृतीनि हूयेरन्

pratihomaś cet sāyam agnihotraprabhṛtīni hūyeran

If a repeated oblation (pratihoma) is to be performed, then in the evening the agnihotra (the twice-daily fire-oblation) and similar rites should be offered.

प्रातस् तु षोडशिनि

prātas tu ṣoḍaśini

But in the morning, in the case of the ṣoḍaśin [a sixteen-fold element/priest of the soma sacrifice].

प्रायश्चित्तम् अधिकारे सर्वत्र दोषमामान्यात्

prāyaścittam adhikāre sarvatra doṣamāmānyāt

Expiation (prāyaścitta, an atoning rite for a ritual fault) applies universally with regard to entitlement (adhikāra, the qualification to perform a rite), because of the traditional teaching (āmnāya) concerning the defect.

प्रकरणे वा शब्दहेतुत्वात्

prakaraṇe vā śabdahetutvāt

Or [it holds] only within the given context (prakaraṇa), since it is the specific word there that is the operative cause.

अतिद्विकारश् च

atidvikāraś ca

And also an excessive modification going beyond the [usual] two-fold pattern (atidvikāra).

व्यापन्नस्याप्सु गतौ यद् अभोज्यम् आर्याणां तत् प्रतीयेत

vyāpannasyāpsu gatau yad abhojyam āryāṇāṁ tat pratīyeta

When something spoiled/corrupted (vyāpanna) has gone into water, that which is not fit to be eaten (abhojya) by the Āryas (respectable, civilized persons) is to be understood as the applicable rule here as well.

विभागश्रुतेः प्रायश्चित्तं यौगपद्ये न विद्यते

vibhāgaśruteḥ prāyaścittaṁ yaugapadye na vidyate

Because of the Vedic statement prescribing separation (vibhāga), no additional expiation exists in the case of simultaneity (yaugapadya) of the lapses.

स्याद् वा प्राप्तनिमित्तत्वात् कालमात्रम् एकम्

syād vā prāptanimittatvāt kālamātram ekam

Or, expiation would still be required, since the occasioning cause (nimitta) has already arisen — there being but a single, shared time (kāla).

तत्र विप्रतिषेधाद् विकल्पः स्यात्

tatra vipratiṣedhād vikalpaḥ syāt

There, because of mutual conflict (vipratiṣedha) between the rules, an option (vikalpa, the freedom to follow either rule) results.

प्रयोगान्तरे वोभयानुग्रहः स्यात्

prayogāntare vobhayānugrahaḥ syāt

Or, in a different application/performance (prayogāntara), both rules could be accommodated (ubhayānugraha).

न चैकसंयोगात्

na caikasaṁyogāt

And [such accommodation] does not apply where there is only a single connection/occasion (ekasaṁyoga).

पौर्वापर्ये पूर्वदौर्बल्यं प्रकृतिवत्

paurvāparye pūrvadaurbalyaṁ prakṛtivat

In a case of temporal sequence (paurvāparya, earlier and later), the earlier element is the weaker one, just as is the rule with the prakṛti (the model/archetypal rite).

यद्य् उद्गाता जघन्यः स्यात् पुनर् यज्ञे सर्ववेदसं दद्याद् यथेतरस्मिन्

yady udgātā jaghanyaḥ syāt punar yajñe sarvavedasaṁ dadyād yathetarasmin

If the udgātṛ (the priest who chants the Sāmaveda) should prove deficient/blameworthy (jaghanya), then at a subsequent sacrifice [the sacrificer] should give away all his wealth (sarvavedasa), just as in the other analogous case.

अहर्गणे यस्मिन्न् अपच्छेदस् तद् आवर्तेत कर्म पृथक्त्वात्

ahargaṇe yasminn apacchedas tad āvarteta karma pṛthaktvāt

In a sequence of days (ahargaṇa, a multi-day rite performed day by day), on whichever day a break or lapse (apaccheda) occurs, that day's rite should be repeated (āvarteta), because each day's rite is a separate unit.

सन्निपाते वैगुण्यात् प्रकृतिवत् तुल्यकल्पा यजेरन्

sannipāte vaiguṇyāt prakṛtivat tulyakalpā yajeran

In a case of sannipāta (the coincidence, or simultaneous occurrence, of two ritual obligations), because of the defect (vaiguṇya) that would otherwise arise, those of equal standing (tulyakalpa) should perform the sacrifice according to the prakṛti (the archetypal/model rite).

वचनाद् वाशिरोवत्स्यात्

vacanād vāśirovatsyāt

Or, on account of a specific scriptural statement (vacana), it would be treated like the śiras (the 'head' element/rite).

न वानारभ्यवादत्वात्

na vānārabhyavādatvāt

Or rather, no — because it is an anārabhyavāda (a statement that does not itself initiate an action, being merely descriptive).

स्याद् वा यज्ञार्थत्वाद् औदुम्बरीवत्

syād vā yajñārthatvād audumbarīvat

Or, it would hold, because of serving the purpose of the sacrifice (yajñārtha), like the audumbarī (the sacrificial post made of udumbara wood).

न तत्प्रधानत्वात्

na tatpradhānatvāt

No — because that element is a principal (pradhāna) one, not a subordinate one.

औदुम्बर्याः परार्थत्वात् कपालवत्

audumbaryāḥ parārthatvāt kapālavat

Since the audumbarī serves another's purpose (parārtha), it is analogous to the kapāla (the potsherd vessel [used for baking the offering-cake]).

अन्येनापीति चेत्

anyenāpīti cet

If it be objected that the same purpose could also be served by another [substitute]...

नैकत्वात्तस्य चानधिकाराच् छब्दस्य चाविभक्तत्वात्

naikatvāttasya cānadhikārāc chabdasya cāvibhaktatvāt

No — because it is singular/unique (ekatva), because there is no entitlement (anadhikāra) for a substitute, and because the Vedic word (śabda) is undivided (avibhakta).

सन्निपातात् तु निमित्तविघातः स्याद् बृहद्रथन्तरवद् विभक्तशिष्टत्वाद् वसिष्ठनिर्वर्त्ये

sannipātāt tu nimittavighātaḥ syād bṛhadrathantaravad vibhaktaśiṣṭatvād vasiṣṭhanirvartye

But because of sannipāta (the coincidence of two ritual elements), there is an obstruction of the occasioning cause (nimitta-vighāta), as in the case of the Bṛhat and Rathantara (two sāman chants), since they are separately/distinctly taught — this applies in a rite to be performed by a Vāsiṣṭha (a priest of the Vasiṣṭha lineage).

अपि वा कृत्स्नसंयोगाद् अविघातः प्रतीयेत स्वामित्वेनाभिसंबन्धात्

api vā kṛtsnasaṁyogād avighātaḥ pratīyeta svāmitvenābhisaṁbandhāt

Or rather, because of connection with the whole (kṛtsna-saṁyoga), non-obstruction (avighāta) should be understood, on account of the relation subsisting through ownership (svāmitva).

साम्नोः कर्मवृद्ध्यैकदेशेन संयोगे गुणत्वेनाभिसंबन्धस् तस्मात् तत्र विघातः स्यात्

sāmnoḥ karmavṛddhyaikadeśena saṁyoge guṇatvenābhisaṁbandhas tasmāt tatra vighātaḥ syāt

When the connection of the two sāmans occurs only through a part (ekadeśa) by way of the expansion of the rite (karmavṛddhi), the relation is merely a subordinate one (guṇatva); therefore, in that case, there would be an obstruction (vighāta).

वचनात् तु द्विसंयोगस् तस्माद् एकस्य पाणिवत्

vacanāt tu dvisaṁyogas tasmād ekasya pāṇivat

But because of a specific scriptural statement (vacana), there is a double connection (dvisaṁyoga); hence, for the single rite, it is analogous to the case of the hand (pāṇi).

अर्थाभावात् तु नैवं स्यात्

arthābhāvāt tu naivaṁ syāt

But, since there is no such purpose/rationale (arthābhāva) in this case, it would not be so.

अर्थानां च विभक्तत्वान् न तच्छ्रुतेन संबन्धः

arthānāṁ ca vibhaktatvān na tacchrutena saṁbandhaḥ

And since the referents/purposes (artha) are mutually distinct (vibhakta), there is no necessary connection with that particular Vedic text (śruti).

प्राणेः प्रत्यङ्गभावाद् असंबन्धः प्रतीयेत

prāṇeḥ pratyaṅgabhāvād asaṁbandhaḥ pratīyeta

Because of the limb-by-limb distinctness (pratyaṅgabhāva) of the living being (prāṇin), non-connection (asaṁbandha) is to be understood.

सत्राणि सर्ववर्णामाम् अविशेषात्

satrāṇi sarvavarṇāmām aviśeṣāt

Sattra sacrifices (extended, communal soma-sacrificial sessions) belong to all the varṇas (social classes), since no distinction excluding any of them is found in the text.

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च

liṅgadarśanāc ca

And because indicatory signs (liṅga) supporting this are also observed [in the texts].

ब्राह्मणानां वेतरयोर् आर्त्विज्यभावात्

brāhmaṇānāṁ vetarayor ārtvijyabhāvāt

[It might be objected that sattras belong] to brāhmaṇas alone, not to the other two varṇas (kṣatriya and vaiśya), because they lack the capacity for priesthood (ārtvijya, the qualification to serve as an officiating priest, ṛtvij).

वचनाद् इति चेत्

vacanād iti cet

If it be argued that this follows from a specific textual statement (vacana)...

न स्वामित्वं हि विधीयते

na svāmitvaṁ hi vidhīyate

No — for ownership/entitlement as sacrificer (svāmitva) is not thereby enjoined.

गार्हपते वा स्याताम् अविप्रतिषेधात्

gārhapate vā syātām avipratiṣedhāt

Or, both [kṣatriya and vaiśya] could be entitled with respect to the gārhapatya [the householder's sacred fire], since there is no conflict (avipratiṣedha).

न वा कल्पविरोधात्

na vā kalpavirodhāt

Or rather, no — because it would conflict with the prescribed procedure (kalpa).

स्वामित्वाद् इतरेषाम् अहीने लिङ्गदर्शनम्

svāmitvād itareṣām ahīne liṅgadarśanam

On the ground of the ownership/sacrificer-status (svāmitva) of the others (kṣatriya and vaiśya), an indicatory sign (liṅga) for this is observed in the ahīna (a class of soma-sacrifice lasting two to twelve days).

वासिष्ठानां वा ब्रह्मत्वनियमात्

vāsiṣṭhānāṁ vā brahmatvaniyamāt

Or, this pertains to the Vāsiṣṭhas (descendants of the sage Vasiṣṭha) alone, because of the fixed rule assigning them the office of brahman (the supervising priest).

सर्वेषां वा प्रतिप्रसवात्

sarveṣāṁ vā pratiprasavāt

Or, it applies to all lineages, because of a pratiprasava (a counter-exception that reinstates the general rule).

विश्वामित्रस्य हौत्रनियमाद् भृगुशुनकवसिष्ठानाम् अनधिकारः

viśvāmitrasya hautraniyamād bhṛguśunakavasiṣṭhānām anadhikāraḥ

Since the office of hautra (the hotṛ priest's role) is fixed for Viśvāmitra and his line, the Bhṛgus, Śunakas, and Vasiṣṭhas (other brahmin lineages) have no entitlement (anadhikāra) to it.

विहारस्य प्रभुत्वाद् अनग्नीनाम् अपि स्यात्

vihārasya prabhutvād anagnīnām api syāt

Because of the governing authority (prabhutva) of the vihāra (the arrangement/direction of the rite), this would extend even to those without consecrated ritual fires (anagni).

सारस्वते च दर्शनात्

sārasvate ca darśanāt

And because a precedent for this is observed in the sārasvata [rite].

प्रायश्चित्तविधानाच् च

prāyaścittavidhānāc ca

And also because of the textual prescription of an expiation (prāyaścitta) for such a case.

साग्नीनां वेष्टिपूर्वत्वात्

sāgnīnāṁ veṣṭipūrvatvāt

For those possessing consecrated fires (sāgni), because their performance is preceded by the veṣṭi (a preliminary rite).

स्वार्थेन च प्रयुक्तत्वात्

svārthena ca prayuktatvāt

And because it is employed for one's own purpose (svārtha), not another's.

सन्निवापं च दर्शयति

sannivāpaṁ ca darśayati

And the text also indicates the sannivāpa (a joint/collective depositing of the offering-materials).

जुह्वादीनाम् अप्रयुक्तत्वात् संदेहे यथाकामी प्रतीयेत

juhvādīnām aprayuktatvāt saṁdehe yathākāmī pratīyeta

When the juhū and other ritual ladles are not employed, in case of doubt, it should be understood that one may act according to option (yathākāmī, i.e. free choice is permitted).

अपि वान्यानि पात्राणि साधारणानि कुर्वीरन् विप्रतिषेधाच् छास्त्रकृत्वात्

api vānyāni pātrāṇi sādhāraṇāni kurvīran vipratiṣedhāc chāstrakṛtvāt

Or, the priests might make other vessels (pātra) common/shared (sādhāraṇa) for joint use, since, in a case of conflict (vipratiṣedha) between rules, the matter is settled by scripture (śāstra).

प्रायश्चित्तम् आपदि स्यात्

prāyaścittam āpadi syāt

Expiation (prāyaścitta) would apply in a case of emergency or distress (āpad).

पुरुषकल्पेन विकृतौ कर्तृनियमः स्याद् यज्ञस्य तद्गुणत्वाद् अभावाद् इतरान् प्रत्येकस्मिन्न् अधिकारः स्यात्

puruṣakalpena vikṛtau kartṛniyamaḥ syād yajñasya tadguṇatvād abhāvād itarān pratyekasminn adhikāraḥ syāt

According to the puruṣakalpa (the rule framed with reference to the individual performer), in a vikṛti (a modified rite derived from the archetype, prakṛti), there would be a restriction on the performer (kartṛniyama), since the sacrifice is subordinate to that restriction; in the absence of such a restriction, entitlement (adhikāra) would belong separately to each of the other participants individually.

लिङ्गाच् चेज्याविशेषवत्

liṅgāc cejyāviśeṣavat

And, on the basis of an indicatory sign (liṅga) also, the rule proves analogous to that governing a particular sacrifice (ijyāviśeṣa).

न वा संयोगपृथक्त्वाद् गुणस्येज्याप्रधानत्वाद् असंयुक्ता हि चोदना

na vā saṁyogapṛthaktvād guṇasyejyāpradhānatvād asaṁyuktā hi codanā

Or rather, no — because the connections (saṁyoga) are distinct/separate, since it is the sacrifice itself (ijyā) that is primary (pradhāna) as against the subordinate element (guṇa); for the injunction (codanā) in such a case stands unconnected/independent (asaṁyukta).

इज्यायां तद्गुणत्वाद् विशेषेण नियमयेत

ijyāyāṁ tadguṇatvād viśeṣeṇa niyamayeta

In respect of the sacrifice (ijyā), since it is subordinate (guṇa) to that principal element, one should apply the restriction/regulation specifically (viśeṣeṇa).

स्वदाने सर्वम् अविशेषात्

svadāne sarvam aviśeṣāt

In the gift (dāna, a donation) of what is one's own, the whole of it may be given, because no distinction [limiting the amount] is stated.

यस्य वा प्रभुः स्याद् इतरस्याशक्यत्वात्

yasya vā prabhuḥ syād itarasyāśakyatvāt

Or rather, only that may be given of which one is the master/owner (prabhu), because giving what one does not own is impossible.

न भूमिः स्यात् सर्वान् प्रत्यविशिष्टत्वात्

na bhūmiḥ syāt sarvān pratyaviśiṣṭatvāt

Land cannot [rightly] be given away, because it is not exclusively distinguished as belonging to any one person with respect to all [beings] — that is, it is common to all, not the exclusive property of one.

अकार्यत्वाच् च ततः पुनर् विशेषः स्यात्

akāryatvāc ca tataḥ punar viśeṣaḥ syāt

And because [a gift of land] is not a proper/enjoined act (akāryatva), a special justification would again be required [for any apparent instance of it].

नित्यत्वाच् चानित्यैर् नास्ति संबन्धः

nityatvāc cānityair nāsti saṁbandhaḥ

And because [land] is permanent (nitya), there is no [real ownership] relation with impermanent (anitya) beings [such as transient rulers].

शूद्रश् च धर्मशास्त्रत्वात्

śūdraś ca dharmaśāstratvāt

The śūdra's case, too, [stands on the same footing]: because [the rule concerning him] belongs to dharmaśāstra (the smṛti law-codes) rather than to direct Vedic injunction, he likewise does not meet the criterion for [a sacrificially valid object of] this Vedic entitlement.

दक्षिणाकाले यत् स्वं तत् प्रतीयेत तद्दानसंयोगात्

dakṣiṇākāle yat svaṁ tat pratīyeta taddānasaṁyogāt

At the time of [giving] the dakṣiṇā (the sacrificial fee), whatever is [then] one's own should be understood as intended [for the gift], because of its connection with that particular act of giving.

अशेषत्वात् तदन्तः स्यात् कर्मणो द्रव्यसिद्धित्वात्

aśeṣatvāt tadantaḥ syāt karmaṇo dravyasiddhitvāt

Because it is total/without remainder (aśeṣatva), it would fall within that [sacrificial act], since the material substance (dravya) is established/accomplished for the sake of the rite (karma).

अपि वा शेषकर्म स्यात् क्रतोः प्रत्यक्षशिष्टत्वात्

api vā śeṣakarma syāt kratoḥ pratyakṣaśiṣṭatvāt

Or else it would be a subsidiary act (śeṣa-karma, an act auxiliary to the main rite), because it is directly specified as belonging to the kratu (the sacrifice proper).

तथा चान्यार्थदर्शनम्

tathā cānyārthadarśanam

And, correspondingly, another purpose/instance is indeed observed [in scripture, supporting this].

अशेषं तु समञ्जसादानेन शेषकर्म स्यात्

aśeṣaṁ tu samañjasādānena śeṣakarma syāt

But the whole [amount], given in a proper/fitting manner, would constitute the subsidiary rite.

नादानस्यानित्यत्वात्

nādānasyānityatvāt

This is not so for non-giving (a-dāna), because it is inconstant/optional (anitya) [and so cannot itself count as part of the subsidiary act].

दीक्षासु विनिर्देशाद् अक्रत्वर्थेन संयोगस् तस्माद् अविरोधः स्यात्

dīkṣāsu vinirdeśād akratvarthena saṁyogas tasmād avirodhaḥ syāt

Because of a specific mention within the dīkṣā (the initiatory consecration rites), its connection is with a purpose other than the kratu itself; therefore there is no contradiction [between the views given].

अहर्गणे च तद्धर्मः स्यात् सर्वेषाम् अविशेषात्

ahargaṇe ca taddharmaḥ syāt sarveṣām aviśeṣāt

In an ahargaṇa (a multi-day sacrificial session), the same rule would apply, since there is no distinction among all [the days involved].

द्वादशशतं वा प्रकृतिवत्

dvādaśaśataṁ vā prakṛtivat

Or, [it would be] twelve hundred [cows, as dakṣiṇā], as in the prakṛti (the archetypal model rite).

अतद्गुणत्वात् नैवं स्यात्

atadguṇatvāt naivaṁ syāt

This would not be so, because it lacks that [same] quality [found in the model rite].

लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च

liṅgadarśanāc ca

And because a corresponding liṅga (an indicatory sign in the text) is also observed.

विकारः सन्न् उभयतोऽविशेषात्

vikāraḥ sann ubhayato'viśeṣāt

Being a vikāra (a derivative/modified form of the model rite), since there is no distinction from either side, [the same rule carries over].

अधिकं वा प्रतिप्रसवात्

adhikaṁ vā pratiprasavāt

Or it might be more, because of a pratiprasava (a re-extension/counter-application of the rule).

अनुग्रहाच् च पादवत्

anugrahāc ca pādavat

And because of anugraha (a supportive extension), as in the case of the pāda-rule (the rule of proportional quarters).

अपरिमिते शिष्टस्य सङ्ख्याप्रतिषेधस् तच्छ्रुतित्वात्

aparimite śiṣṭasya saṅkhyāpratiṣedhas tacchrutitvāt

Where [the scripturally prescribed quantity] is unlimited, fixing a number for what is enjoined is prohibited, because that [unlimited quantity] is what the śruti (the Vedic text) actually states.

कल्पान्तरं वा तुल्यवत् प्रसङ्ख्यानात्

kalpāntaraṁ vā tulyavat prasaṅkhyānāt

Or, equally, it would be [treated as] a separate alternative procedure (kalpāntara), because of the explicit numerical statement [found in the text].

अनियमोऽविशेषात्

aniyamo'viśeṣāt

There is no niyama (a fixed binding rule) here, because no distinction is indicated.

अधिकं वा स्याद् बहूर्थत्वाद् इतरेषां सन्निधानात्

adhikaṁ vā syād bahūrthatvād itareṣāṁ sannidhānāt

Or it would be more, because [the term] has many referents, on account of the proximity of the other [items in the context].

अर्थवादश् च तदर्थवत्

arthavādaś ca tadarthavat

And this is an arthavāda (an explanatory/laudatory statement — not itself a direct injunction, but supporting one), serving that same [main injunction's] purpose.

परकृतिपुराकल्पं च मनुष्यधर्मः स्याद् अर्थाय ह्य् अनुकीर्तनम्

parakṛtipurākalpaṁ ca manuṣyadharmaḥ syād arthāya hy anukīrtanam

And what is spoken of as belonging to another['s doing], as an event of a bygone age (purākalpa), should [in fact] be understood as human dharma (human practice/conduct), for such re-telling (anukīrtana) serves a [persuasive/laudatory] purpose [rather than stating literal history].

तद्युक्ते च प्रतिषेधात्

tadyukte ca pratiṣedhāt

And because, in a matter connected with that, a [scriptural] prohibition is also found.

निर्देशाद् वा तद्धर्मः स्यात् पञ्चावत्तवत्

nirdeśād vā taddharmaḥ syāt pañcāvattavat

Or, because of the explicit textual designation, that rule would apply — just as in the case of the pañcāvatta (the well-known rule of the five sacrificial portions).

विधौ तु वेदसंयोगाद् उपदेशः स्यात्

vidhau tu vedasaṁyogād upadeśaḥ syāt

But where it functions as a vidhi (an injunction), because of its connection with the Veda, it would count as a genuine upadeśa (an authoritative teaching).

अर्थवादो वा विधिशेषत्वात् तस्मान् नित्यानुवादः स्यात्

arthavādo vā vidhiśeṣatvāt tasmān nityānuvādaḥ syāt

Or rather, it is an arthavāda, because it is subordinate to (a śeṣa of) an injunction; therefore it would be a standing restatement (nitya-anuvāda) [of an already-settled fact], not a fresh literal assertion.

सहस्रसंवत्सरं तदायुषाम् असंभवान् मनुष्येषु

sahasrasaṁvatsaraṁ tadāyuṣām asaṁbhavān manuṣyeṣu

'A thousand years' (sahasra-saṃvatsara) — as regards lifespan, this is simply impossible among human beings [if taken literally].

अपि वा तदधिकारान् मनुष्यधर्मः स्यात्

api vā tadadhikārān manuṣyadharmaḥ syāt

Or rather, because of the adhikāra (the ritual entitlement/qualification) connected with it, it should be understood as [describing] human practice.

नासामर्थ्यात्

nāsāmarthyāt

This is not [so], because of [human] incapacity/incompetence [to actually accomplish it that way].

सम्बन्धादर्शनात्

sambandhādarśanāt

Because no [logical] connection [between the two] is observed.

स कुलकल्पः स्याद् इति कार्ष्णाजिनिर् एकस्मिन्न् असंभवात्

sa kulakalpaḥ syād iti kārṣṇājinir ekasminn asaṁbhavāt

According to Kārṣṇājini, that would be a kula-kalpa (a procedure carried out across a family lineage), because it is impossible for a single individual [to accomplish in one lifetime].

अपि वा कृत्स्नसंयोगाद् एकस्यैव प्रयोगः स्यात्

api vā kṛtsnasaṁyogād ekasyaiva prayogaḥ syāt

Or rather, because of its connection with the entirety [of the result], the performance would belong to a single individual alone.

विप्रतिषेधात् तु गुण्यन्यतरः स्याद् इति लावुकायनः

vipratiṣedhāt tu guṇyanyataraḥ syād iti lāvukāyanaḥ

According to Lāvukāyana, because of a conflict [between the two views], either one of the two subsidiary elements (guṇin) alone would apply [without fixed determination].

संवत्सरो विचालित्वात्

saṁvatsaro vicālitvāt

The saṃvatsara (year) [as a unit] is meant, because it is something variable/transferable in application.

सा प्रकृतिः स्याद् अधिकारात्

sā prakṛtiḥ syād adhikārāt

That [year] would serve as the prakṛti (the archetypal model), because it is on that basis that the adhikāra (entitlement) is established.

अहानि वाभिसंख्यत्वात्

ahāni vābhisaṁkhyatvāt

Or, [the figure refers] to days (ahāni), since these are what is explicitly enumerated [in the relevant text].

इष्टिपूर्वत्वाद् अक्रतुशेषो होमः संस्कृतेष्व् अग्निषु स्याद् पूर्वोऽप्य् आधानस्य सर्वशेषत्वात्

iṣṭipūrvatvād akratuśeṣo homaḥ saṁskṛteṣv agniṣu syād pūrvo'py ādhānasya sarvaśeṣatvāt

Because it is preceded by an iṣṭi (a minor oblatory rite), the homa (homa, the fire-oblation) that is not tied to any specific kratu (sacrifice proper) would be performed in the already-consecrated fires; it may even precede [other rites], since the ādhāna (ādhāna, the establishing of the sacred fire) is auxiliary to everything.

इष्टित्वे न तु संस्तवश् चतुर्होतॄन् असंस्कृतेषु दर्शयति

iṣṭitve na tu saṁstavaś caturhotṝn asaṁskṛteṣu darśayati

But, being an iṣṭi, there is no [need for a] continuous eulogy (saṃstava); rather, [the text] shows the four hotṛ-priests officiating even where the fires have not been [formally] consecrated.

उपदेशस् त्व् अपूर्वत्वात्

upadeśas tv apūrvatvāt

But it is indeed a genuine upadeśa (teaching), because it is apūrva (something new, not previously established by other rules).

स सर्वेषाम् अविशेषात्

sa sarveṣām aviśeṣāt

That [rule] applies to everyone, since no distinction [among qualified persons] is made.

अपि वा क्रत्वभावाद् अनाहिताग्नेर् अशेषभूतनिर्देशः

api vā kratvabhāvād anāhitāgner aśeṣabhūtanirdeśaḥ

Or rather, because of the absence of any specific kratu [in view], the instruction is designated as applying to all beings without exception — including the anāhitāgni (one who has not [yet] established the sacred fire).

जपो वानग्निसंयोगात्

japo vānagnisaṁyogāt

Or, it is [merely] a japa (a silently muttered recitation), since there is no connection with fire [in this case].

इष्टित्वेन संस्तुते होमः स्याद् अनारभ्याग्निसंयोगाद् इतरेषाम् अवाच्यत्वात्

iṣṭitvena saṁstute homaḥ syād anārabhyāgnisaṁyogād itareṣām avācyatvāt

Where it is established as an iṣṭi, homa does take place — through connection with an already-existing fire, without kindling one anew — because for others [who have no fire at all], it cannot even be stated/prescribed.

उभयोः पितृयज्ञवत्

ubhayoḥ pitṛyajñavat

For both [parties, i.e. with and without established fire], the rule is the same as in the pitṛyajña (pitṛyajña, the rite performed for the ancestors).

निर्देशो वानाहिताग्नेर् अनारभ्याग्निसंयोगात्

nirdeśo vānāhitāgner anārabhyāgnisaṁyogāt

Or, there is a specific textual designation for the anāhitāgni too, through connection with an already-existing fire rather than one newly kindled.

पितृयज्ञे संयुक्तस्य पुनर् वचनम्

pitṛyajñe saṁyuktasya punar vacanam

In the pitṛyajña, this is a repeated statement concerning one who is [otherwise] already connected/qualified [for it].

उपनयन्न् आदधीत होमसंयोगात्

upanayann ādadhīta homasaṁyogāt

One who takes a wife (marries) should establish the sacred fire (ādhāna), because of its connection with homa [the oblations that follow].

स्थपतीष्टवल् लौकिके वा विद्याकर्मानुपूर्वत्वात्

sthapatīṣṭaval laukike vā vidyākarmānupūrvatvāt

Like the sthapati-iṣṭi (the offering-rite for/by a chieftain's presiding priest), or it might be [established] in an ordinary/secular (laukika) fire, because of the natural sequence of learning followed by ritual action.

आधानं च भार्यासंयुक्तम्

ādhānaṁ ca bhāryāsaṁyuktam

And the ādhāna (fire-establishment) is necessarily connected with [having] a wife.

अकर्म चोर्ध्वम् आधानात् तत्समवायो हि कर्मभिः

akarma cordhvam ādhānāt tatsamavāyo hi karmabhiḥ

And after the ādhāna, it is not [itself] a further independent act, for its real inherence/connection lies with the [subsequent] rites [that will use that fire].

श्राद्धवद् इति चेत्

śrāddhavad iti cet

If it be objected: 'this is like the śrāddha (the ancestral offering-rite) [which is not so bound]...'

न श्रुतिविप्रतिषेधात्

na śrutivipratiṣedhāt

No, because that would conflict with the [explicit] statement of the śruti.

सर्वार्थत्वाच् च पुत्रार्थो न प्रयोजयेत्

sarvārthatvāc ca putrārtho na prayojayet

And, because it serves all [life-]purposes generally, one should not undertake it solely for the sake of obtaining a son.

सोमपानात् तु प्रापणं द्वितीयस्य तस्माद् उपयच्छेत्

somapānāt tu prāpaṇaṁ dvitīyasya tasmād upayacchet

But because of [the requirement for] soma-drinking, the acquisition of a second [wife] becomes necessary; therefore one should marry [her].

पितृयज्ञे तु दर्शनात् प्राग् आधानात् प्रतीयेत

pitṛyajñe tu darśanāt prāg ādhānāt pratīyeta

But in the case of the pitṛyajña, because it is [independently] observed [in practice/text], it should be understood that it can occur even prior to the ādhāna.

स्थपतीष्टिः प्रयाजवद् अग्नयाधेयं प्रयोजयेत् तादर्थ्याच् चापवृज्येत

sthapatīṣṭiḥ prayājavad agnayādheyaṁ prayojayet tādarthyāc cāpavṛjyeta

The sthapati-iṣṭi, like the prayāja (the preliminary oblations), would lead to the agny-ādheya (the fire-establishment); and, being solely for that purpose, it would conclude [once that purpose is fulfilled].

अपि वा लौकिकेऽग्नौ स्याद् आधानस्यासर्वशेषत्वात्

api vā laukike'gnau syād ādhānasyāsarvaśeṣatvāt

Or rather, it would take place in an ordinary/secular fire, since the ādhāna is not auxiliary to absolutely everything.

अवकीर्णिपशुश् च तद्वद् आधानस्याप्राप्तकलत्वात्

avakīrṇipaśuś ca tadvad ādhānasyāprāptakalatvāt

And the animal-offering of the avakīrṇin (one who has broken his vow of celibacy) is treated likewise, because in his case the proper occasion for ādhāna has not yet arrived.

उदगयनपूर्वपक्षाहः पुण्याहेषु दैवानि स्मृतिरूपान्य् आर्थदर्शनात्

udagayanapūrvapakṣāhaḥ puṇyāheṣu daivāni smṛtirūpāny ārthadarśanāt

The days of udagayana (the sun's northward course) and of the pūrvapakṣa (the bright/waxing fortnight), among the auspicious days, are of a divine (daiva) character, as described in the smṛti, because their [ritual] purpose is [empirically] observed.

अहनि च कर्मसाकल्यम्

ahani ca karmasākalyam

And on that [very] day, the rite must be performed in its entirety (sākalya).

इतरेषु तु पित्र्याणि

itareṣu tu pitryāṇi

But on the other [days], the pitrya (ancestor-related) rites are the appropriate ones.

याच्ञाक्रयणम् अविद्यमाने लोकवत्

yācñākrayaṇam avidyamāne lokavat

When [the required item] is not [otherwise] available, one may beg for it or purchase it — just as is done in ordinary worldly practice.

नियतं वार्थवत्वात् स्यात्

niyataṁ vārthavatvāt syāt

Or, it would be niyata (fixed/obligatory), because it serves a [genuine ritual] purpose.

तथा भक्षप्रैषाच् छादनसंज्ञप्तहोमद्वेषम्

tathā bhakṣapraiṣāc chādanasaṁjñaptahomadveṣam

Similarly, from the praiṣa (the ritual command) for the bhakṣa (the partaking of the sacrificial portion), an exception is understood regarding the chādana (the covering [rite]), the saṃjñapta ([the animal] duly consecrated/slain), and the homa.

अनर्थकं त्व् अनित्यं स्यात्

anarthakaṁ tv anityaṁ syāt

But whatever [act] serves no [further] purpose would be anitya (optional, not obligatory).

पशुचोदनायाम् अनियमोऽविशेषात्

paśucodanāyām aniyamo'viśeṣāt

In the codanā (the injunction) regarding the sacrificial animal, there is no fixed restriction, since no distinction [as to which animal] is specified.

छागो वा मन्त्रवर्णात्

chāgo vā mantravarṇāt

Or, [the animal meant] is specifically a chāga (a goat), because of the wording found in the mantra.

न चोदनाविरोधात्

na codanāvirodhāt

No — [this cannot be an absolute rule], because it would conflict with the [general] injunction [which leaves the animal unspecified].

आर्षेयवद् इति चेत्

ārṣeyavad iti cet

If it be objected: 'this is like the ārṣeya [rule, concerning the sage's lineage-name to be recited]...'

न तत्र ह्य् अचोदित्वात्

na tatra hy acoditvāt

No — because there [in that case, the specific name] is indeed not [separately] enjoined [so the analogy does not hold].

नियमो वैकार्थ्यं ह्य् अर्थभेदाद् भेदः पृथवत्वेनाभिधानात्

niyamo vaikārthyaṁ hy arthabhedād bhedaḥ pṛthavatvenābhidhānāt

It is indeed a niyama (a restriction [to the goat]) — otherwise [the wording] would be purposeless — since there is a difference of meaning, and this difference [is established] by its being stated separately/distinctly.

अनियमो वार्थान्तरत्वाद् अन्यत्वं व्यतिरेकशब्दभेदाभ्याम्

aniyamo vārthāntaratvād anyatvaṁ vyatirekaśabdabhedābhyām

Or, there is no restriction, because it pertains to an entirely different matter; its distinctness is established by both the [logical] exclusion (vyatireka) and the difference of wording.

रूपाल् लिङ्गाच् च

rūpāl liṅgāc ca

And also from [its] rūpa (rūpa, physical form) and liṅga (indicatory mark).

छागे न कर्माख्या रूपलिङ्गाभ्याम्

chāge na karmākhyā rūpaliṅgābhyām

In the case of the chāga (goat), the designation is not by reference to any [particular sacrificial] act, but rather on the basis of [its] rūpa (physical form) and liṅga.

रूपान्यत्वान् न जातिशब्दः स्यात्

rūpānyatvān na jātiśabdaḥ syāt

Because of the difference/variation in physical form, it would not be a jāti-śabda (a term denoting a whole species/class).

विकारो नौत्पत्तिकत्वात्

vikāro nautpattikatvāt

It is a vikāra (a derivative/secondary form), not autpattika (having the natural, inherent word-meaning relation [that a true species-term would have]).

स नैमित्तिकः पशोर् गुणस्याचोदितत्वात्

sa naimittikaḥ paśor guṇasyācoditatvāt

That [designation] is naimittika (naimittika, contingent on a particular occasion, not a fixed rule), because that attribute of the animal [namely, its being a goat] is not independently enjoined.

जातेर् वा तत्प्रायवचनार्थवत्वाभ्याम्

jāter vā tatprāyavacanārthavatvābhyām

Or rather, it does pertain to the jāti (species/class) after all, on both grounds: its customary/general usage, and its having genuine [ritual] purpose.

श्रुतिप्रमाणत्वाच् छेषाणां मुख्यभेदे यथाधिकारं भावः स्यात् ॥ १ ॥

śrutipramāṇatvāc cheṣāṇāṁ mukhyabhede yathādhikāraṁ bhāvaḥ syāt || 1 ||

Because śruti (the direct Vedic text) alone is the authority (pramāṇa) for the śeṣas (subordinate/subsidiary elements), when there is a difference in the mukhya (the principal element, e.g. the deity or substance), the occurrence of the śeṣas should follow according to their own adhikāra (the scope of application each is entitled to by its own text).

Note: Opens the adhikaraṇa on atideśa (transference of subsidiary details from a model/prakṛti rite to a modified/vikṛti rite) that occupies the rest of Pada 1: whether a change in the principal element blocks blanket extension of the śeṣas, each of which is otherwise warranted only by its own textual authority.

उत्पत्त्यर्थाविभागाद् वा सत्त्ववद् ऐकधर्म्यं स्यात् ॥ २ ॥

utpattyarthāvibhāgād vā sattvavad aikadharmyaṁ syāt || 2 ||

Or, because the purpose (artha) at the origination (utpatti) [of the rite] is undivided, there should be a uniformity of character (aikadharmya), just as [there is uniformity] in respect of sattva (basic existence/nature).

चोदनाशेषभावाद् वा तद्भेदाद् व्यवतिष्ठेरन्न् उत्पत्तेर् गुणभूतत्वात् ॥ ३ ॥

codanāśeṣabhāvād vā tadbhedād vyavatiṣṭheran n utpatter guṇabhūtatvāt || 3 ||

Or, since the being of the śeṣas depends on the codanā (injunction), on account of a difference in that [injunction for different rites] they would each be settled distinctly, because they are merely guṇabhūta (subordinate) to the utpatti (origination of the principal act).

सत्वे लक्षणसंयोगात् सार्वत्रिकं प्रतीयेत ॥ ४ ॥

satve lakṣaṇasaṁyogāt sārvatrikaṁ pratīyeta || 4 ||

If [considered] in respect of sattva (mere existence), because of its connection with a [generic] lakṣaṇa (defining mark), it would be understood as sārvatrika (applicable universally).

अविभागात् तु नैवं स्यात् ॥ ५ ॥

avibhāgāt tu naivaṁ syāt || 5 ||

But, because of avibhāga (the undividedness [of the purpose]), it would not be so.

द्व्यर्थत्वं च विप्रतिषिद्धम् ॥ ६ ॥

dvyarthatvaṁ ca vipratiṣiddham || 6 ||

And dvyarthatva (having a double meaning/purpose [for one and the same injunction]) is vipratiṣiddha (self-contradictory).

उत्पत्तौ विध्यभावाद् वा चोदनायां प्रवृत्तिः स्यात् ततश् च कर्मभेदः स्यात् ॥ ७ ॥

utpattau vidhyabhāvād vā codanāyāṁ pravṛttiḥ syāt tataś ca karmabhedaḥ syāt || 7 ||

Or, because there is no [separate] injunction at [each] origination, the application [of the śeṣas] would rest in the [general] codanā itself; and from that a karmabheda (difference of ritual acts) would result.

यदि वाप्य् अभिधानवत् सामान्यात् सर्वधर्मः स्यात् ॥ ८ ॥

yadi vāpy abhidhānavat sāmānyāt sarvadharmaḥ syāt || 8 ||

Or if, like an abhidhāna (a denoting word), on account of sāmānya (generality), it would possess every property [i.e. apply universally, sarvadharma].

अर्थस्य त्व् अविभक्तत्वात् तथा स्याद् अभिधानेषु पूर्ववत्त्वात् प्रयोगस्य कर्मणः शब्दभाव्यत्वाद् विभागाच् छेषाणाम् अप्रवृत्तिः स्यात् ॥ ९ ॥

arthasya tv avibhaktatvāt tathā syād abhidhāneṣu pūrvavattvāt prayogasya karmaṇaḥ śabdabhāvyatvād vibhāgāc cheṣāṇām apravṛttiḥ syāt || 9 ||

But because the artha (meaning/purpose) is undivided, it would be so [universal]; yet in [actual] usages, because of pūrvavattva (the character of following the precedent), and because the karma (ritual act) is śabdabhāvya (to be accomplished by the word), on account of that division there would result apravṛtti (non-application) of the śeṣas [elsewhere].

स्मृतिर् इति चेत् ॥ १० ॥

smṛtir iti cet || 10 ||

[Objection:] If it be said that [this transference occurs] merely by smṛti (recollection of the model rite)...

न पूर्ववत्वात् ॥ ११ ॥

na pūrvavatvāt || 11 ||

[Reply:] No, because [it operates] through pūrvavattva (the established principle of following the precedent rite as such), not through mere memory.

अर्थस्य शब्दभाव्यत्वात् प्रकरणनिबन्धनाच् छब्दाद् एवान्यत्र भावः स्यात् ॥ १२ ॥

arthasya śabdabhāvyatvāt prakaraṇanibandhanāc chabdād evānyatra bhāvaḥ syāt || 12 ||

Because the artha is śabdabhāvya (to be accomplished by the word), and on the ground of being bound to its prakaraṇa (context), the occurrence [of the element] elsewhere would come only through that [connecting] word itself, not otherwise.

सामाने पूर्ववत्वाद् उत्पन्नाधिकारः स्यात् ॥ १३ ॥

sāmāne pūrvavatvād utpannādhikāraḥ syāt || 13 ||

In a sāmāna (similar/parallel) case, by virtue of pūrvavattva, [the modified rite's] adhikāra (entitlement) would be treated as already utpanna (arisen).

श्येनस्येति चेत् ॥ १४ ॥

śyenasyeti cet || 14 ||

[Objection:] If it be said that [this pūrvavattva] should hold also in the case of the Śyena [a rite performed to harm an enemy]...

Note: Source reads 'श्येनस्येति चेति', ending in चेति rather than the standard Mimamsa formula 'इति चेत्' (used identically ~10 times elsewhere in this same adhyaya, e.g. 7.1.10, 7.1.20, 7.2.4, 7.2.7, 7.2.19, 7.3.10, 7.3.13). This is a mechanical transcription slip (a stray vowel-sign/corrupted virama on त्), not a genuine variant reading; normalized here to चेत् and documented.

नासन्निधानात् ॥ १५ ॥

nāsannidhānāt || 15 ||

[Reply:] No, because of asannidhāna (the [Śyena injunction's] lack of textual proximity [to the model rite's context]).