Manava Dharmashastra 2.10.3

2.10.3

vyāghātaḥ-udite hotavyamanudite juhvato doṣaḥ | "prātaḥprātaranṛtaṃ te vadanti purodayājjuhvati ye'gnihotram" | tathā'nudite hotavyaṃ--"yathā atithaye pradrutāya dadyāttādṛgetadyajjuhuyā"dityekatroditahomo vidhīyate'nuditahomanindayā tadvaiva viparītamanyat | tatraikaḥ pakṣa āśrīyatāmityanadhyavasāyaḥ | yadevāgnihotrādyaṃ kasyāṃ śākhāyāṃ vidyate tadeva śākhāntare'pi | sarvaśākhāpratyayamekaṃ karmetyabhyupagamaḥ | tataśca punaruktam |"tatrānṛtameva tanna bhavatītyetenaiva pādena pratipādyate | yate| vedāddharma eva kartavyatāmātraṃ yāgādiviṣayaṃ nirbabhau vibhāti gamyate | na punaḥ kālaviśeṣaḥ phalotpattau, adhikāravākyeṣu kālaviśeṣāśravaṇāt | vidhito hi phalaṃ bhavatītyetāvadgamyate | kālāvacchedo na vidhiḥ | dhātvarthasambandhino hi kālavibhāgā bhūtabhaviṣyadvartamānāḥ | na caitadvātvarthaḥ phalaṃ kintu vaidham | dhātvarthaphalaṃ hi tadānīmeva nirvartate devatoddeśena dravyatyāgo havirvikārādi | yadi kaścitkasyacidājñākaro bhavati tena preṣyataṃ 'gaccha yāhi grāmamiti' sa ājñāsampādane pravṛtta kadācitprārambha eva vetanaphalaṃ labhate, kadācinmadhye, kadācitkṛtaājñāviṣaye ; samanantaramanyedyurvā kālāntare'thavā | evametacchāstraphalamaniyatakālam | divyavṛṣṭyādestu svābhāvyena pratyāsattimātraṃ gamyate | na tu tadaharevotpattiḥ | pratibandhakāni ca yathā phalasyaivaṃvidhasya loke bhavanti tathā vede'pi, purākṛtaṃ duṣkṛtādi | tathā ca veda evaitaddarśayati, ‘yadi na varṣettathaiva vasediti’ | sarvasvāre tu vivadante | ‘naitatkratuphalam | aṅgametatsmaraṇam |

(b) There is ‘inconsistency’ also: when it is said ‘libations should be offered after sunrise,’ if it were offered before sunrise, it would be clearly wrong; as it is said—‘those who perform the Agnihotra before sunrise utter falsehood morning after morning.’ Then again, it is said ‘that the libations should be offered before the sun has risen,’ for (it is said) ‘the offering made after sunrise would be like the offering of reception to the guest after he had gone.’ Now in the former we have the injunction of offering after sunrise, and a deprecation of offering before sunrise, while in the latter we have the reverse. So that people are always in doubt as to which alternative they should adopt.

(c) The same Agnihotra that is enjoined in one Vedic Rescension is found to be enjoined in another Rescension also; and it has been held (by the Mīmāmsakas) that the act, mentioned in the various texts, is one and the same (Agnihotra) And this is a clear Repetition.”

That there is no ‘untruthfulness’ in the Veda is what is meant by the last quarter of the Verse (‘it was out of these that Dharma shone forth’). Because out of the Veda ‘Dharma alone—i.e., only that a certain act should be done, in the form of sacrifice,—‘shone forth,’ is expounded; and it does not say anything definite in regard to the time at which the rewards shall appear; this is clear from the fact that the passages that speak of rewards do not make mention of any time; all that we learn from the Injunction is that a certain result shall follow, and the Injunction does not specify the time. As a matter of fact, divisions of time, past, present and future, are related to what is expressed by the verbal root; while the Result is not denoted by the verbal root at all; it is only implied by the Injunction; what is denoted by the verbal root (i.e., the act of ‘sacrifice’) is actually accomplished at the time (of the performance), in the form of the offering of a substance for the benefit of a certain deity,—the fulfilment of this offering appearing in the form of the transformation of the substance offered (into the fire, for instance). Further in ordinary life also, we find that when a person, who is an obedient servant of another, is directed to go to a certain place, he at once obeys the order; though as regards his wages, in some cases he may obtain it at the very beginning; but also sometimes during the act, or even after the act has been accomplished; and then also he may get them on the same day, or the next day, or at some future time. In the same manner, there is no limit as to the time at which the results spoken of in the scriptures will appear; all that is meant is that (by the performance of the act) the result, in the shape of Heaven, Rain or so forth, is brought within reach,—and not (hat they appear on the very same day. Then again, just as there are obstacles in the way of the realising of results of acts done in the ordinary course of life, so there are also in the case of the acts prescribed by the Veda,—such obstacles consisting of past sins and so forth. This (possibility of the Rain not coming immediately after the act) is clearly shown in the Veda itself when it says ‘if the rain should not come, the man should continue as before.’ And as regards the Sarvasvāra sacrifice (which is laid down as leading the performer to heaven), people have explained that the reward does not consist in the immediate entrance to Heaven, in fact it consists in what the man actually desires, and the desire is in the form ‘may I reach heaven without difficulty [ i.e., after death; immediate translation to heaven would mean immediate death, which no man desires].

As regards the argument that there is no difference in the act of killing as done in ordinary life and as done during a Vedic sacrifice,—what has to be borne in mind is the fact that the sinfulness of the act of killing is known only from the scriptures, it is not amenable to perception or any ordinary means of knowledge; and there is certainly a difference: the ordinary killing is prompted by passion, while the sacrificial killing is prompted by Vedic Injunction; and as the killing of the animal offered to Agni-Soma is prompted by the Vedic Injunction, this constitutes a great difference. From all this it is clear that in the Veda there is nothing ‘untruthful.’

As regards ‘Inconsistency’ (which is the second point urged against the Veda), the Author is going to answer it in the text itself (Verses 14-15 below).—(10)