Click here for the previous question
Question –
110
Agreeing that the
Arundhati -Vasishtha verse contains two conflicting natures of Arundhati, why
can’t we take both as Shabda Pramana and accept that Arundhati could have gone
in front of Vasishtha for many years?
Answer:
When two
contradictory statements are given by no less a person than Vyasa in the
context of an important observation of the surroundings around him, there is a
way out to handle such paradoxical statements.
When two Pramanas
with contradictory connotations are observed for the same frame of inference,
the logical way to solve it is to apply Mimamsa axiom of Gunapradhana wherein Guna
means subordinate and Pradhana means principal. This axiom has been used by the
Indian judiciary in interpreting contentious clauses.
Gunapradhana axiom
states that “if a word or sentence purporting to express a subordinate idea
clashes with the principal idea, the former must be adjusted to the latter, or
must be disregarded altogether.”
In the verse by
Vyasa, Arundhati praised in all the three worlds by the righteous people is the
Pradhana statement. The applause was for not obstructing the path of her
husband by crossing his way or moving in front of him. The same Arundhati
perceived as having put her husband at her back is Guna statement as that was
reported only at that time or seen only at that time. Never before or never
after anywhere in the text or by Vyasa himself, the second feature of Arundhati
had ever been reported or recorded.
So, the second
statement being Guna in nature has to be read as not disrupting the former
(Pradhana)– meaning to say that Arundhati was not seen putting her husband at
her prishṭha by others, but only by Vyasa – which is possible if it happened
for a short period of time – not long enough to get to be noticed by others.
Secondly, when
Guna does not match with Pradhana, such an observation (Guna) is fit to be
discarded as an aberration. It can be said, that as per the logic of Purva
Mimamsa, the reference to Arundhati keeping her husband at her Prishṭha is not
factual.
That is why Vyasa
qualified it as a ‘nimitta’!
