History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.199

v7.c93.199

6. The doctrine of *apūrva* (invisible mysterious or subtle potency). The Veda lays down that one desirous of heaven should perform a sacrifice. But the reward heaven comes off only after a long time, while the sacrifice lasts only for a short time. There would thus be no direct connection between the sacrifice (the cause) and heaven (the reward) or purpose It must be presumed from the Vedic injunction that there is some connecting link between the activity of man to perform a yāga and the reward. Before the principal and subordinate acts in a sacrifice are performed men have no capacity for svarga and sacrifices (described in the texts) are also incapable of producing the effect 'svarga'. The principal and subsidiary acts in a sacrifice when carried out remove the incapacity and produce a certain capacity or potency for svarga. This must be admitted by all Unless such a capacity exists there would be the unacceptable conclusion that not doing the acts and doing them are on the same level. This capacity or potency either residing in the man (agent) or arising from the sacrifice that is performed is called *apūrva* in this śāstra It is true that this capacity cannot be proved by direct perception or other means of knowledge except by *śrutārthāpatti*. When we are told that a man who is fat does not eat by day we presume, in order to account for this, that he must be eating food at night. Similarly, the Veda brings sacrifice and svarga together; we have to presume that sacrifice gives rise to a subtle potency, though the sacrifice itself comes to an end in a short time, and that this potency is the cause of bringing about the reward svarga and that we may look upon it as abiding in the soul of the sacrificer or as an invisible effect (a reaching forth of the yāga itself that has vanished).¹⁹⁶⁴ Mīmāṁsakas do not admit that the results of religious acts are given by God. The V S III 2 40 states that this is the view of Jaimini (dharmam Jaiminir-ata eva) and is opposed to the view of Bādarāyaṇa, Śaṅkara and the Bhāmatī that it is God who confers the reward. According to the Prakaraṇapañcikā (p 186) the invisible force or potency is not in the agent but arises as a subtle form from the action itself. Four kinds of Apūrva¹⁹⁶⁵ (with further sub-divisions) as regards Darśapūrṇamāsa sacrifice are stated by Mādhavācārya.