1.4.15
Mīmāṃsā Sūtra / Adhyāya 1 / 1.4.15
मिथश् चानर्थसम्बन्धः
mithaś cānarthasambandhaḥ
The line
And there is no mutual connection of meaning that would let the one word do both jobs.
नेपालीमा
र अर्थको आपसी सम्बन्ध छैन जसले एउटै शब्दलाई दुवै काम गर्न दिओस्।
Where it sits
ca adds this to the refusal of the option in 1.4.14. The Vaiśvadeva (वैश्वदेव) sentence is still the subject. anarthasambandhaḥ (अनर्थसम्बन्धः) denies a sense-tie between the name-reading's offering and a fresh deity-injunction.
Split: mithas (मिथ) + ca (च) + an-artha-sambandhaḥ (अन्-अर्थ-सम्बन्धः)
Sanskrit, in depth
The words
| Word | Grammar | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| mithas (मिथ) | indeclinable | mutually |
| ca (च) | indeclinable | and |
| an-artha-sambandhaḥ (अन्-अर्थ-सम्बन्धः) | nominative singular, masculine | absence of a connection of meaning |
The phrases
The objector tries once more. By a secondary use the word Vaiśvadeva (वैश्वदेव) would directly indicate an offering already qualified by Agni and the others, because the milk-mess of the All-gods comes in there. And it would also enjoin the All-gods.
One utterance cannot do both. There is no mutual tie of meaning by which the word both points at that qualified offering and lays down the All-gods. So the word is the name of the rite.
Sanskrit in this line
mithas before ca is heard as mithaś (मिथश्), and ca before a as cā (चा). The privative an belongs with arthasambandha. sambandha here writes m for the anusvāra (अनुस्वार) of sam.
Say it back
Say that one hearing of Vaiśvadeva (वैश्वदेव) cannot both point at the offerings and enjoin the All-gods.
Next
1.4.16. Qualities are for the sake of the rite, so they do not make the offering repeat.