History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.243
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.243
- Language
- English
v7.c93.243.1
It is now time to see how the Mīmāṁsakas deal with the contents of the Veda. The extant Vedic literature is of enormous extent and of greatly varied content. Once it is admitted that the Veda is self-existent and not the work of any author, human or divine, every sentence in it apparently becomes of infallible authority. The Veda being the only means of knowing Dharma, the Mīmāṁsakas had to accept that whatever the Veda says was authoritative and binding on them, as Śabara¹⁹⁸⁷ admits. But many Vedic texts are apparently in conflict with each other and often are in conflict with ordinary experience. A few striking instances may be given to show how difficulties arose. The Tai. S V. 2. 7 and Mai. S state 'one should not pile the fire altar on (bare) earth, nor in the sky, nor in heaven'.¹⁹⁸⁸ No one can build a fire altar in the sky, nor in heaven. The Veda apparently prohibits something which is quite impossible and therefore this prohibition seems at first sight senseless. The Tai. Br. (III 8. 10. 5) states that by offering the Pūrṇāhuti the performer secures all desired objects. If Pūrṇāhuti yields all objects, then one need not perform any further rites of Agnihotra &c Does the Veda mean this? The Veda contains stories and legends about individuals e. g. Tai. S. mentions Babara Prāvāhani who desired to be an eloquent speaker and therefore performed a sacrifice called Pañcarātra and secured his object.
v7.c93.243.2
The Veda would then be later in time than this Babara and this would forfeit the claim of being eternal &c. Therefore, Śabara states that a story that never happened is described for the sake of praise. This may be an escape from a tight corner but the explanation does not redound to the credit of the Veda which is here admitted to have manufactured a non-existent story for pushing up one of its injunctions; besides, if people come to know from what Śabara says that the story is false, people would not be induced to go in for performing that rite. A true story might encourage persons to follow the prescription of the Veda in this case. The Tantravārtika (p. 125) on this explanation of Śabara tries to meet the objection raised here. Sometimes Veda is divided into three portions viz. Vidhi, Arthavāda and Mantra, names of yāgas like *udbhid* and *viśvajit* being placed under vidhi. The Ślokavārtika refers to this threefold division in its last verse.¹⁹⁸⁹ Though the whole Veda is the only means of right knowledge about what Dharma is i. e. what should be done and what should not be done, the different parts of the Veda are not all directly related to right knowledge about Dharma. Large portions of the Veda are related only mediately to the principal part.¹⁹⁹⁰ In one place Śabara very succintly but clearly defines the three classes of Vedic texts and illustrates them. The Veda is also divided into five parts viz. vidhi, arthavāda, mantra, nāmadheya and pratishedha.
v7.c93.243.3
These five have already been mentioned above. Here some details will have to be added on each of these. Vidhi is an injunction (or exhortation) that is meaningful on account of enjoining a matter that has a (useful) purpose and it prescribes something that does not follow (or is not established by) from any other authority. Śabara himself describes in many places what vidhi means. For example, the injunction 'one desirous of (attaining) Heaven should offer Agnihotra' prescribes (the performance of) homa that does not follow from any other authority and that has a beneficial purpose, its meaning being 'by the Agnihotra offering one should effect (the attainment of) svarga'. Where, however, a rite is otherwise established, all that can be done is only to enjoin an accessory with regard to it. Thus in the sentence 'one should offer an oblation with curds' the homa being already established by the words 'one should offer Agnihotra (if one desires heaven)' all that is enjoined is the offering of curds with regard to it, the meaning being 'by curds one should effect the oblation'. Vide Tup-tīkā on P. M. S. VI. 3. 17 and M. N. P. p. 17 (B. O. R. I ed.).¹⁹⁹¹