Mimamsasutra 121.2

121.2

udbhidā yajeta; balabhidā yajeta; abhijitā yajeta; viśvajitā yajeteti samāmananti. tatra saṃdehaḥ - kim udbhidādayo guṇavidhayaḥ, āhosvit karmanāmadheyānīti. kutaḥ saṃśayaḥ? ubhayathāpi pratibhāto vākyāt - udbhidety eṣa śabdo yajetety anena saṃbadhyate. sa kiṃ vaiyadhikaraṇyena saṃbandham upaiti - udbhidā dravyeṇa yāgam abhinirvartayed iti, uta sāmānādhikaraṇyena - udbhidā yāgena yajeteti. dvedhāpy etasmin pratibhāti vākye, saṃbhavati saṃśayaḥ.
kiṃ tāvat prāptam? uktam asmābhiḥ samāmnāyasyaidam arthyam. kaścid asya bhāgo vidhiḥ, yo 'viditam arthaṃ vedayati, yathā - somena yajeteti. kaścid arthavādaḥ, yaḥ prarocayan vidhiṃ stauti, yathā - vāyur vai kṣepiṣṭhā devatā iti. kaścin mantraḥ, yo vihitam arthaṃ prayogakāle prakāśayati, yathā - barhir devasadanaṃ dāmītyevamādiḥ. tasmād udbhidādayo 'mīṣāṃ prayojanānām anyatamāya prayojanāya bhaveyuḥ. tatra tāvan nārthavādaḥ, vākyaśeṣo hi sa bhavati vidhātavyasya. na ca mantraḥ, evaṃjātīyakasya prakāśayitavyasyābhāvāt. pāriśeṣyād guṇavidhiḥ - udbhidguṇatā yāgasya vidhīyate. kutaḥ. prasiddher anugrahāt, guṇavidher arthavattvāt pravṛttiviśeṣakaratvāc ca. na caiṣāṃ yāgārthatā loke 'vagamyate. na ca vedena paribhāṣyate. ato guṇavidhayaḥ. yadi guṇavidhiḥ, na tarhi karma vidhīyate. avihite ca karmaṇi tatra guṇavidhāna[86]m anarthakam. neti brūmaḥ. prakṛtau jyotiṣṭome guṇavidhānam arthavad bhaviṣyati. yadi nāmadheyaṃ syād, yāvad eva yajeteti, tāvad eva udbhidā yajeteti, na pravṛttau kaścid guṇaviśeṣaḥ syāt. guṇavidhau ca guṇasaṃyogād abhyadhikam arthaṃ vidadhata udbhidādayaḥ śabdā arthavanto bhaviṣyanti. tasmād guṇavidhaya ity evaṃ prāptam.

They hand down in tradition: "He should sacrifice with the Udbhid"; "He should sacrifice with the Balabhid"; "He should sacrifice with the Abhijit"; "He should sacrifice with the Viśvajit." In that regard, there is a doubt: Are words such as "udbhid" injunctions of an accessory, or are they names of the ritual action? Whence the doubt? Because both possibilities appear from the sentence: this word "udbhidā" is connected with "yajeta." Does it enter into connection through different grammatical case-relations (incongruence)—as in "he should accomplish the sacrifice by means of the udbhid substance"—or through co-referentiality—as in "he should sacrifice by means of the udbhid sacrifice"? Since the sentence appears in both ways, doubt arises.
What, then, is the preliminary conclusion? We have already stated the purpose of the traditional sacred text. One portion of it is an injunction, which makes known an unknown matter, as in "He should sacrifice with Soma." One portion is a corroborative statement, which praises the injunction by making it attractive, as in "Vāyu indeed is the swiftest deity." Another portion is a mantra, which makes manifest the enjoined matter at the time of performance, as in "I cut the sacrificial grass, the seat of the gods," and so on. Therefore, "udbhid" and the like must serve one of these purposes. In that regard, it is not a corroborative statement, for that is a sentential remnant to what is to be enjoined. Nor is it a mantra, because there is no matter of that kind to be manifested. By elimination, it is an injunction of an accessory: the state of having the udbhid as an accessory is enjoined for the sacrifice. Why? Because the conventional usage is respected, because an injunction of an accessory is meaningful, and because it brings about a specific inducement to activity. Nor is their purpose of serving the sacrifice understood in worldly life; nor is it conventionally defined by the Veda. Hence they are injunctions of an accessory. If it is an injunction of an accessory, then the ritual action itself is not enjoined; and when the ritual action is not enjoined, enjoining an accessory with respect to it would be meaningless. We reply: No; the injunction of an accessory will be meaningful with respect to the archetype, the Jyotiṣṭoma. If it were a name, then "He should sacrifice with the Udbhid" would mean nothing more than "He should sacrifice," and there would be no specific auxiliary detail for one's activity. But when it is an injunction of an accessory, the words "udbhid" and the like will be meaningful by enjoining an additional matter through the connection with an accessory. Therefore, the preliminary conclusion is that they are injunctions of an accessory.