History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.564

v7.c93.564

A good many sūtras (in chap. VI. 3. 17-41) deal with what are called 'pratinidhi' (substitute, representative or proxy). These have been described in H. of Dh. Vol. II. pp. 684-1110, 1203, Vol. III. pp. 471, 637, 653. 654 (where Satyāṣāḍha Śr. S. III containing similar rules is mentioned). A few of them are briefly mentioned here. The first rule is that if the substance declared by the Veda for preparing an offering perishes or is lost as regards an obligatory rite or as regards *kāmya* rite that is already begun, one should substitute another substance (like nīvāras, wild rice grains) for *vrīhi* (rice grains) or *yava* i. e. barley grains and finish the rite (*VI. 3 13-17*). In some cases Vedic texts prescribe a substitute for the substance required to be used, as in 'if he (the performer) cannot obtain the Soma plant, he should substitute pūtika stalks and extract juice therefrom' It is argued by the objector that, as the Veda expressly substitutes pūtikas for soma, one should conclude that where Veda does not expressly mention a substitute for a prescribed substance, it means that a substitute is not allowed by the Veda in other cases. The siddhānta is that the prescribing of pūtikas as substitute is a restrictive rule²¹⁶⁹ viz. that although several plants may resemble soma, there is a restriction that only pūtikas should be substituted. It is provided (in III. 6 37, 39) that when a substitute like nīvāras is employed, the subsidiary acts of sprinkling with water, pounding with mortar and pestle that are performed on rice or barley grains should also be performed on them. When rice grains are employed the mantra expressly speaks of the rice offering as the sap or essence of rice grains. There adaptation (*ūha*) is to be made as 'nīvārānām medha' (vide PMS IX 3. 1-2).²¹⁷⁰ But in certain cases no substitute is allowed viz the devatā with respect to which an *havis* (offering) is prescribed cannot have another substituted in a rite e. g. 'āgneyostākapālah' cannot be changed into 'aīndrostākapālah', since in that case the rite will cease to be what was intended. Similarly, when the text says 'he offers into the Āhavanīya fire,' one cannot substitute the Gārhapatya fire; another mantra cannot be substituted for the one prescribed nor can other rites be substituted for the Prayājas 'samidho yajati' &c.).²¹⁷¹