Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Purva-Mimamsa in its Sources c27: Chapter XXII: What Acts Constitute Dharma

Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā in its Sources c27

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XXII: What Acts Constitute Dharma

c27.1

by the visible end. From the above distinction it follows that—those acts that are not meant to be productive (or preparatory) of material Substances are ‘Primary’ Acts,—because the material Substance is a sub-ordinate factor.—(Sū. 7). The reason for these Acts being regarded as *Primary* is that, as they do not produce any material Substance, nor do they produce any peculiarity in the Substance already extant, they cannot but be regarded as bringing about transcendental Results. On the other hand—Those Acts that are meant to be productive or preparatory of a Material Substance are to be regarded as ‘Subsidiary’, because in regard to these, the Material Substance is the dominant factor.—(Sū. 8). To this latter class belong all such acts as the Consecration of the Sacrificial Fire, the Appointment of Priests to officiate at Sacrifices, the threshing and grinding of Corns and so forth.

c27.2

It may be noted here that this distinction of Acts into ‘Pradhāna’, Primary, and ‘Guṇa’, Subsidiary, is quite different from the subject of Aṅga or Śeṣa (Auxiliary) and Aṅgin or Śeṣin, (Principal): as the former distinction is applicable to Acts alone, while the latter is a relationship between Acts on the one hand and Substances, Qualities and Purifications or Embellishments on the other. (See Sūtra 3. 1. 1, *et seq.*) [See below, p. 272]

c27.3

From what has gone above it would seem that there is always an Apūrva in connection with, and brought about by, the Act denoted by every verb. In order to remove this misconception, the Sūtras (2. 1. 6—8 and 9—12) have pointed out that it is not so, and that Actions have to be classed under two Heads—(1) *Pradhāna* (Primary) and (2) *Guṇa* (Secondary or Subsidiary), and it is the Primary Act only that directly leads on to an Apūrva, the Subsidiary Act only helps the Primary. Examples of this have been provided. There is the Vedic text ‘One should thump the corn’, where the Act of thumping is laid down; and in regard to this act, the Established Conclusion is that no Apūrva follows this act; it serves only the visible purpose of removing the chaff from the grains, and thereby renders them better fitted for being made into the ‘Cake’ to be offered; through this same visible Effect, it helps the Sacrifices at which the Cake is offered; so that there is no need for postulating a separate Apūrva as resulting from the said Thumping. This act of Thumping therefore is ‘Subsidiary’ to that Act at which the Cake is offered—i.e., the Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa Sacrifice, which thus is the ‘Primary’ Act. Similarly with the Act of washing laid down in the Text ‘One should wash the Sruk and other implements’; where the washing only serves to clean the Implements and render them fitter for use at the Acts where they are used; it does not lead to a separate Apūrva of its own.

c27.4

What has been said regarding Verbs occuring in Vedic Texts being Injunctive of Acts might lead people to think that every verb that occurs in a Vedic Text enjoins an Act, and hence all Vedic texts are Injunctive. This idea is negated by Sūtra 2. 1. 30-31, where it is shown that every such verb is not Injunctive, there are many that are merely assertive or declaratory; these latter are those occurring in Mantra-texts which, as a rule, are not injunctive (See above under Mantra).

c27.5

This is followed in the Sūtra by an account of ‘Mantra’. (for which see above).

(E) Classification of Acts

c27.s1.1.1

Before proceeding with the subject of Difference among Acts, it is necessary to explain the various divisions and classifications that have been made among Acts. The first division of Acts is into—(1) Laukika, Worldly, Secular and (2) Vaidika, Superphysical, Religious, Spiritual. The Religious Acts are classed under three heads:—(1) Positive or Act proper, i.e., the Performance of an Act, (2) Negative, i.e., the avoidance of an Act; and (3) Positive-Negative, partaking of the character of both Performance and Avoidance. Another division of Religious Acts is into—(1) Guṇakarma, Secondary or Subsidiary Act, (2) Pradhāna or Artha-karma, Primary, Effective, Act. Of the Positive Act, there are three main divisions into the three kinds of Offering’—(1) Yāga, Sacrifice, offering to a Deity, (2) Homa—offering into Fire (or Water), and (3) Dāna, giving away, by waiving one's own proprietory right over the thing in favour of another person.—(See Mīmāṁsābālaprakāsha, pp. 81 et seq.). Kātyāyana, in his Shrauta-Sūtra has drawn a further distinction between Yāga and Homa, by which the Yāga is the offering made by a man standing and pronouncing the syllable ‘Vaṣaṭ’ at the end of the Mantra, while Homa is the offering made by the man sitting and pronouncing the syllable ‘Svāhā’. A further division has been made among the Vedic or Religious Acts by Mīmāṁsakas, into the following three classes:—(1) *Kratvartha*, an act helping the fulfilment of the Sacrifice;

c27.s1.1.2

under this head fall all *Guṇakarma*, Subsidiary Acts; (2) *Puruṣārtha*, accomplishing things desired by the Agent; under this head fall all *Artha-karma*, Primary Acts, as directly bringing about the *Apūrva* which leads to the desired Result;—(3) Those that are neither *Kratvartha* nor *Puruṣārtha*; under this falls the Rite of Fire-installation. These three heads have been accepted by the *Bhaṭṭa* (See *Śāstradīpikā*, 4. 1, 1, *Dravyārjanādhikaraṇa*). *Prabhākara* however admits only the first two of these; nor do we find any authority for the third either in the *Bhāṣya* or in the *Tantravārttika*. The twofold classification is based upon the *Sūtra* itself—4. 1. 1. The first of these, the *Kratvartha* Act, is of two kinds—(1) The *Ārādupakāraka*—helping the Sacrifice *Indirectly*, through distinct subsidiary *Apūrvas*, e.g., the *Prayājas* helping the *Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa*; (2) the *Sannipattyopakāraka*, helping the Sacrifice *Directly*, without any intervening subsidiary *Apūrvas*. This *Sannipattyopakāraka* itself is of three kinds—(1) that which serves a visible purpose; (2) that which serves an imperceptible purpose and (3) that which serves both visible and imperceptible purposes.

c27.s1.1.3

The first of these again is of two kinds—(1) that which produces a visible effect in the Substance going to be used at the Sacrifice, and (2) that which produces a visible effect in the Substance that has been used at the Sacrifice, this latter being called '*Pratipattikarma*', Act of Disposal. The second kind of the *Sannipattyopakāraka* again, is of three kinds—(1) Affecting the Substance that has been used, *e.g.*, the burning of the Substances out of which the offerings have been made; (2) affecting the Substance to be used, *e.g.*, sprinkling water over the corn; and (3) affecting the Substance at the time that *it* is being used. Another division of the *Kratvartha* Act is into—(1) *Utpatti*, Productive Act, *e.g.*, kneading of the dough, which produces the Cake, (2) *Prāpti*, Obtaining, securing,—*e.g.*, milking of the Cow, whereby the milk is obtained; and (3) *Vikṛti*, Modificatory,—*e.g.*, threshing of the Corn, which alters its appearance; (4) *Saṃskṛti*, Purificatory, Embellishment,—*e.g.*, sprinkling of water over the corn. There is yet another classification of the Vedic or Religious Act into the following four classes—(1) *Prakṛti*, Archetypal, *e.g.*, *Agnihotra*; (2) *Vikṛti*, Ectypal, *e.g.*, the *Māsāgnihotra*; (3) *Prakṛti-Vikṛti*,—partaking of the character of both, Archetypal and Ectypal; *e.g.*, the *Agniṣomīya*, which is the Ectype of the Darsha-Pūrṇamasa, but the Archetype of the Savanīya (See Mīmāmsā Sū. 8. 1.

c27.s1.1.4

14), and (4) Neither Archetypal nor Ectypal; e.g. the Darvī-homa (See last Adhikaraṇa of Adhyāya 8).

c27.s1.2

The most important classification of the Religious Act is into—(1) Nitya, Compulsory, (2) Naimittika, Contingent (Occasional), (Sū. VI), and (3) Kāmya, Prospective, performed for a particular purpose.

c27.s1.3

The above are the divisions of the Positive Act, the Negative Act consists in Cessation from Activity, or Non-performance. This is of two kinds (1) Kratvartha, e.g., the not-holding of the Ṣoḍashin-Vessels; and (2) Puruṣārtha, e.g., the not-killing of animals.

c27.s1.4

The third kind of Act, which is neither Positive nor Negative is also of two kinds—(1) Kratvartha, e.g., the reciting of the Yājyāmaha-Mantras which is done at the main Sacrifice and which is not done at the Anuyājas, and (2) Puruṣārtha, e.g., the vow not to look at the Rising Sun.

(F) Grounds of Differentiation among Acts

c27.s2.1

Having explained the more important classifications of Acts, we shall now turn our attention to the main question—'What are the Means by which we ascertain the difference or non-difference among Acts.'

c27.s2.2

The Bhāṣya (on Sū. 2.1.1) has cited six means of such differentiation:—(1) Different Words (Under Sū. 2. 2. 1), (2) Repetition (Under Sū. 2.2.2), (3) Number (Under Sū. 2. 2. 21), (4) Accessory Details (Under Sū. 2.2.23), (5) Context (Under Sū. 2.3.24) and (6) Name (Under Sū. 2.2.22).

c27.s2.3

We proceed to explain each of them:—

c27.s2.4

(1) Differentiation by Different Words:—When there is a different word, there is a different Act, because of its special equipment—says the Sūtra (2.2.1). There are such texts as—(1) ‘One should Sacrifice with Soma’, (2) ‘One should pour the Libation into Fire,’ and (3) ‘Give gold to Ātrēya’; where we have three sentences containing three different verbs, denoting Acts. Unless there be reasons to the contrary, these three Acts must be different; as each of them has its own equipment of accessories.

c27.s2.5

(2) Differentiation by Repetition:—In a case where the same verb is used, but several times,—the Repetition of one and the same word should indicate difference among the acts; because, if there were no difference, the repetition would be useless. (Sūtra 2.2.2). For example,—we have such texts as ‘Samidho yajati—Tanvūnapātam yajati—Ido yajati—Varhiryajati—Svāhākāram yajati, —where the same verb ‘yajati’ has been repeated five times. On the face of it the idea is that the verb being the same, the Acts denoted by them must be the same. But the Established Conclusion is that if one and the same act were meant to be enjoined, then there would be no point in repeating the verb five times; hence the texts should be taken as laying down five different Sacrifices.

c27.s2.6

(3) Differentiation by Number:—Number should be a differentiator among Acts,—because it is based upon separateness, says the Sūtra (2. 2. 21); e.g., the text ‘One sacrifices seventeen animals dedicated to Prajāpati’—lays down seventeen distinct acts of Sacrifice.

c27.s2.7

(4) Differentiation by Accessory Details—such as the Deity, the Material or other Accessories—When a word denoting a material is related to a word denoting a Deity other than the one gone before, it becomes a Differentiator of the Acts—says the Sūtra (2. 2. 23); e.g., the text, ‘When curd is put into hot milk, the milk becomes turned into curdled solids, called Amikṣā, which is offered to the Vishvedevas,—and the liquid, the skimmed milk, is offered to the Bājins’—is taken as laying down two distinct offerings.

c27.s2.8

(5) Differentiation by Context—We have the injunction of the compulsory daily Agnihotra in the text ‘One should offer the Agnihotra’; and in a different section of the Veda we have another text enjoining the performance of the Agnihotra ‘for a month’. In this case the conclusion is that the Context is different, the purpose must be different (Sū. 2.3.24); so that the monthly Agnihotra laid down in the second text must be different from the daily Agnihotra laid down in the former text.

c27.s2.9

(6) Differentiation by Name:—The Name also differentiates Acts, as it occurs in the originative Injunction, says the Sūtra (2. 2.22); e.g., the text—‘Athaiṣa jyotiḥ—atha vishvajyotiḥ—Athaiṣa *sarvajyotiḥ*—is taken as mentioning three different acts named respectively (1) *Jyoti*, (2) *Viśvajyoti* and (3) *Sarvajyoti*.

c27.s2.10

It is interesting to note that though difference of Context differentiates acts, difference of the Veda-Śākhā is not accepted as a ground for differentiation; for instance, the *Agnihotra* is found enjoined by a text occurring in the *Kaṭhaka* Resension. The conclusion is that the act enjoined in all these texts is one and the same *Agnihotra*,—because there is no difference in connection, in purpose, in form, in injunction or in Name—says the *Sūtra* (2.4.9).

c27.s2.11

A certain commentator, says *Kumārila*, has accepted only four grounds of differentiation—(1) Different Words, (2) Different Names, (3) Different Accessory Details, and (4) Different Results. He has included ‘Number’ and ‘Repetition’ under ‘Words’, and ‘Context’ under ‘Result’. This however is not acceptable—says *Kumārila*. (*Tantravārtika*, Trs., pp. 885-886.)

Linked texts (1)