The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c19.s6.38

c19.s6.38

28. Cf. *PB* 15. 6. 5; *ĀpŚS* 21. 9. 7–9, with Caland's notes. This tenth day seems to have been a problem for the classical ritualists. It is called *avivākya*, "on which no declaration of errors should be made." However, only *AB* 5. 22. 5 gives this rule simply. The other texts discuss at length whether "declaration" is or is not to be made, the conclusion being that it is to be made. The central problem, however, seems to be another one, By whom is it to be made? The term *avivākya* implies that a declaration is to be made, but by somebody else. Thus *AB* 3. 35. 4 says that no "declaration" of possible errors in the recitation of the āgnimāruta śastra (in the normal Soma sacrifice) is to be made and that (therefore) one should provide for a separate "declarer" (*tasmād āgnimārute na vyucyam, eṣṭavyo vivaktā*), whom "one thus makes into a bridge for passing," meaning that the "declarer" takes the onus of the error or, originally, the onus of death. (One may also interpret the passage as an unresolved mīmāṃsā, simply stating the two theses). It would seem that the problem arose with the elimination of the contest, verbal or otherwise, from the classical ritual.