1.4.7
Mīmāṃsā Sūtra / Adhyāya 1 / 1.4.7
तुल्यत्वात् क्रिययोर् न
tulyatvāt kriyayor na
The line
No, because the two actions are equal, and the word is not a quality-injunction.
नेपालीमा
होइन, किनकि दुई कर्म बराबर छन्, र शब्द गुणविधि होइन।
Where it sits
na answers iti cet of 1.4.6. kriyayoḥ (क्रिययोः) are the vājapeya (वाजपेय) and the rite into which the objector would put it. tulyatvāt (तुल्यत्वात्) says a quality needs a principal already standing, and here neither action is subordinate.
Split: tulyatvāt (तुल्यत्वात्) + kriyayoḥ (क्रिययोः) + na (न)
Sanskrit, in depth
The words
| Word | Grammar | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| tulyatvāt (तुल्यत्वात्) | ablative singular, neuter | because of equality |
| kriyayoḥ (क्रिययोः) | genitive dual, feminine | of the two actions |
| na (न) | indeclinable | no |
The phrases
No. The two actions would be on one level. The vājapeya (वाजपेय) action and the action of the new-moon and full-moon rites would each want the same injunctive ending. The initiations and the upasad days would then have no place.
Those days are stated: the vājapeya (वाजपेय) has seventeen initiations, and seventeen upasad days. That fits if the vājapeya (वाजपेय) action is on a level with the jyotiṣṭoma (ज्योतिष्टोम), an offering with its own name, and not a quality tucked into another rite. So the word is the name of the rite. The equality is the sign. How the name is reached is the next line.
Sanskrit in this line
kriyayoḥ (क्रिययोः) before na is heard as kriyayor. The dual is the two actions, not two qualities. Śabara (शबर) reads the equality once as a fault in the quality-reading, and once as the fitness of the name-reading. The sūtra (सूत्र)'s na covers both.
Say it back
Say no, and give the seventeen initiations and the seventeen upasad days as the sign that the vājapeya (वाजपेय) is its own rite.
Next
1.4.8. One word cannot both enjoin the offering and restate it for a quality.