1.4.14

Mīmāṃsā Sūtra / Adhyāya 1 / 1.4.14

न वा प्रकरणात् प्रत्यक्षविधानाच् च न हि प्रकरणं द्रव्यस्य

na vā prakaraṇāt pratyakṣavidhānāc ca na hi prakaraṇaṃ dravyasya

The line

Or rather, no, because of the context and of direct injunction, for context does not belong to a substance so as to cancel it.

नेपालीमा

बरु होइन, प्रकरण र प्रत्यक्ष विधिका कारण, किनकि प्रकरण द्रव्यलाई खारेज गर्ने गरी द्रव्यको हुँदैन।

Where it sits

na vā (वा) answers vikalpaḥ (विकल्पः) of 1.4.13. pratyakṣavidhāna (प्रत्यक्षविधान) is the direct text of Agni and the other deities. prakaraṇa (प्रकरण) is the stretch of text that ties the All-gods to that stretch. dravyasya is the deity-substance already stated, which context must not push aside.

Split: na (न) + vā (वा) + prakaraṇāt (प्रकरणात्) + pratyakṣa-vidhānāt (प्रत्यक्ष-विधानात्) + ca (च) + na (न) + hi (हि) + prakaraṇam (प्रकरणम्) + dravyasya (द्रव्यस्य)

Sanskrit, in depth

The words

WordGrammarSense
na (न)indeclinableno
vā (वा)indeclinableor rather
prakaraṇāt (प्रकरणात्)ablative singular, neuterbecause of the context
pratyakṣa-vidhānāt (प्रत्यक्ष-विधानात्)ablative singular, neuterbecause of a direct injunction
ca (च)indeclinableand
na (न)indeclinablenot
hi (हि)indeclinablefor
prakaraṇam (प्रकरणम्)nominative singular, neutercontext
dravyasya (द्रव्यस्य)genitive singular, neuterof a substance

The phrases

Or rather, no. Agni and the others are laid down for their offerings by direct text. The All-gods are got by the sentence, through the context, and they belong with those offerings, not with some other rite.

An uneven option is not to be accepted. Context cannot set aside a substance that direct word has stated. So Vaiśvadeva (वैश्वदेव) is the name of the rite.

Sanskrit in this line

vidhānāt (विधानात्) before ca is heard as vidhānāc (विधानाच्). The second na hi is the reason inside the decision, not a second objection. prakaraṇam (प्रकरणम्) is nominative and dravyasya depends on it.

Say it back

Say that Agni stays by direct text, and that Vaiśvadeva (वैश्वदेव) names the rite instead of offering an option.

Next

1.4.15. One utterance cannot both name the qualified offerings and enjoin the All-gods.