________________
104
THE KARMA-MIMĀMSĀ
Saunaka's text, which asserts that the son of a daughter and the son of a sister are adopted by Sudras, is to be read to mean that these adoptions are generally permissible, and that they are specially so in the case of Sūdras: the maxim used is the Maiträvaruna, which rests on the interpretation of the two sentences, "He hands over a staff to the Maitrāvaruna priest; he initiates or invokes by means of the staff." The accepted opinion is that the handing over of the staff is a distinct injunction, the initiation or invocation subsidiary, and so here the part of the Śūdra is only subsidiary to an established rule. Sankara Bhatta, his father, whom Nilakantha cítes, expressly applies to the Sudra the duty of paying his debt to the Fathers, which is asserted of the Brahman as an instance in the Alīmāmsä Sutra.
Similar use of the Mīmāmsā is made in the same connection by Nanda Pandita in the Dattakamımānsä (c 1600 A.D.). Thus on the analogy of the Vaišvadeva, which is a maxim (I, 4, 13-16) laying down that in the case of such a word as that the conventional sense is to be followed in lieu of the etymological, he holds (VI, 27) that the term sapinda used of relationship is not to be restricted to the exact meaning suggested by the word as a compound. So also, in order to meet the objection of Medhătithi to an adopted son on the ground that the duty of man is fulfilled only by begetting a son, he adduces (I, 41) the maxim (VI, 3, 31) of the substitution of the Pütika for the Soma plant. In determining the value of substitution the mode in which the substitute originated is unimportant, the question is whether it can serve its purpose adequately, and this an adopted son can easily do. Again, the objection to the rule that an adoptive father must perform the birth ceremony for an adopted child, though adoption is perrnitted up to the fifth year, is met by the use of the maxini (V, 4, 5-14) that, when a difficulty arises as to the order of performance of offerings, reason and necessity must be consulted, whence it follows that the performance of the birth ceremony is in order though tardy. The author of the Dattakacandriti similarly appeals to the Mimāṁsā doctrine (IV, 1, 22-24 ) of the relation of the principal and incidental aspects of an action, in order to support his view that, if one of two co-widows adopt, the
