Purva-Mimamsa in its Sources c30: Chapter XXV: Order of Sequence

Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā in its Sources c30

Language: English

Chapter XXV: Order of Sequence

c30.2

So far, under Discourses I-IV *Jaimini* has dealt with details of *What should be done*; in Discourse V he has dealt with the Order of Sequence in the performance or doing of what should be done.

There are five means by which this *Order of Sequence* is determined. They are—(1) *‘Śruti’* Direct Assertion; (2) *Artha*, Purpose (or Utility); (3) *‘Pāṭha’*, Verbal Text; (4) *‘Pravṛtti’*, commencement (or Tendency); (5) *‘Kāṇḍa’*, Place (in the texts); and (6) *‘Mukhya’*, the Principal.

c30.4

Before expounding these, one important difference of opinion on this subject has to be noted. The *Bhaṭṭa* and the *Prābhākara* hold entirely different opinions regarding the question as to whether or not this *Order of Sequence* comes within the purview of Injunction proper. According to the *Bhaṭṭa*, Order does form an object of the Injunction (See *Nyāyamālāvistara* on 5.1.1.); while according to the *Prābhākara* it cannot do so. (*Bṛhatī*, Ms. 100-100B; *Ṛjuvimalā* Ms. P. 497 et. seq. and *Prakaraṇapañchikā* P. 220). The reasoning of these latter may be thus summed up: In the case of all Injunctive texts, apart from the enjoined Act itself, we should be justified in admitting that alone as the further object of Injunction without which the enjoining of the Act itself would remain incomplete;—as a matter of fact, the *Order* of performance does not come under this category; because whether we perform the Act at one time or the other, it is performed all the same, and the purpose of the Injunction is fulfilled. Thus then, *Order* not being an integral factor in the Act, it cannot, as a rule, be an object of Injunction by the word that enjoins the act itself. In some cases however it is the *Order* itself that is enjoined by the Injunctive Text; for instance, the drinking or the eating of the Sacrificial Remnant having been enjoined by one Injunctive text, there is another Injunctive text enjoining the *Order* in which that Drinking and Eating is to be done; this text being the one that lays down that ‘the Priest who pronounces the syllable *Vaṣaṭ* is to do the Eating, *first of all*’. Such instances however are rare; as a rule, the Injunctive Text says nothing as to the *Order* even when it does in certain cases, it does so not by means of the Injunctive Word, but by some other Word.

c30.5

Now as regards the *Six Means of determining Order*.—

c30.6

(1) *Direct Assertion*, in the Veda itself; e.g., ‘The *Adhvaryu* Priest should initiate the *Brahman* Priest, *after having initiated the Master of the House*’; where the *Order of Sequence* has been Directly Asserted, as this is the sole authority,—says the *Sūtra* 5.1.1.

c30.7

This same *Sūtra* has been interpreted as determining the preliminary general question—Is *Order* to be determined by the Veda, or by some other means? The conclusion is that it can be determined only by the Vedic Injunction. (*Bhāṣya*, Trs. pp. 862-863).

c30.8

It has also been taken as determining the question as to whether or not the Veda enjoins the *Order*; and the Established Conclusion is that the Vedic Text does enjoin the *Order*. (*Bhāṣya* Trs. P. 863),—though not necessarily by the same word that enjoins the act itself—says the *Prābhākara*.

c30.9

(2) The *Order of Sequence* among Acts is determined also by *Purpose, Utility*; for instance, though the text enjoining the cooking of the *Yavāgū*—‘*Yavāgūm pacati*’—occurs in the Veda after the text enjoining its offering—‘*Agnihotram juhoti*’, yet the cooking is done before the offering; through considerations of *Utility* or *Expediency*; as the cooking would serve no useful purpose after the offering has been made.—(Sū. 5. 1. 2).

c30.10

(3) In some cases, the *Order* among Acts is determined by the order in which the Texts enjoining them occur in the Veda,—*i.e.*, by the *Verbal Text*. *E.g.*, in connection with the *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa* we have the texts—‘One should offer the *Samit*,—one should offer the *Tanūnapāt* etc., etc.’; and the conclusion regarding these is that the Acts should be performed in this definite order of sequence (Sū. 5. 1. 4),—this order being the one indicated by the order of the Vedic *Verbal Texts* concerned—says the *Bhāṣya* (Trs. P. 868). Hence the performance of the *Samit* should come before that of the *Tanūnapāt*.

c30.11

(4) *Order* is also determined by *Pravṛtti, Commencement*. For instance, the Sacrifice of ‘Seventeen’ animals dedicated to *Prajāpati* has been enjoined;—it has also been enjoined that each one of these seventeen animals has to go through a series of embellishments,—such as Upākaraṇa, Niyojana and the rest;—when these Embellishments come to be performed, the first of these may be done to any one of the seventeen animals one likes; but when this process has once commenced with a particular animal, and the first of the Embellishments has been done to that animal,—the second and subsequent embellishments also should commence with the same animal with which the first started; the order of these latter Embellishments being thus determined by the Commencement of the Process. Says the Sūtra (5. 1. 8)—In a case where it is possible for several details to be performed at one time, their order of sequence is to be determined by THE ORDER OF COMMENCEMENT, as the performance began in that order.

c30.12

(5) Order is also determined by Place. For example, we have the text—‘For one desiring offspring, one should sacrifice with the Atirātra-Stoma containing twenty-one verses;—for one desiring glory he should sacrifice with the Atirātra containing twenty-seven verses;—for one desiring social standing, he should sacrifice with the Atirātra containing thirty-three verses’,—(Tai. Sam. 2. 2. 4. 7);—and in connection with this, it has been explained later on—(under Sūtra 10. 5. 26), that these varying numbers of verses have to be made up by introducing additional verses. Now, the question that arises is—when this introducing of additional verses is being done, are these additional verses to be introduced promiscuously, without any regard to the order of sequence? or, are they to be introduced in the order in which they occur in their respective Vedic texts? The Established Conclusion is that the order of the verses introduced into the Atirātra is determined by the Place that each verse occupies in the text of the Veda; so that those that appear first in the text of the Veda should be introduced first (Bhāṣya, Trs. P. 873). The Bhāṣya points out that the above case might well be taken as an instance of Order determined by Verbal Text (No. 3 above); hence it has provided another instance. The Jyotiṣṭoma is the Archetype of the Sādyaskra Sacrifice; at the Jyotiṣṭoma, three animals are sacrificed in the following order:—(1) the Agniṣomīya animal is sacrificed on the Previous Day,—(2) the Savanīya animal is sacrificed on the Extraction Day, at the Morning Extraction, (3) the Anubandhya animal is sacrificed after the Final Sacrificial Bath. In accordance with the General Law regarding Archetypes and their Ectypes, the order of the sacrificing of the three animals in connection with the Sādyaskra would be the same as the above, had it not been for the special Injunction that ‘At the Sādyaskra, all the animals should be sacrificed together’; it has also been decided that at the Sādyaskra, this sacrificing of all the three animals has to be done on the Extraction Day. Now in regard to this, there arises the question,—when all the three animals are going to be sacrificed together on the same day, what is to be the order in which they are to be sacrificed? Should the Agniṣomīya be sacrificed first, in accordance with the order indicated by the Verbal Texts mentioning the three animals? or, should the Savanīya be sacrificed first,—on the strength of its Place, as being the first to be sacrificed on that particular day (of Extraction)?—The Established Conclusion on this question is that the Savanīya is the first animal to be sacrificed, on the basis of ‘Place’, which is the first for the Savanīya for that day. (Bhāṣya Trs. Pp. 873-874).

c30.13

(6) Lastly, Order is also determined by the Principal; that is, the Order of Sequence at the Subsidiary should follow the order at the Principal because Accessories are meant to subserve the purposes of the Principal—says the Sūtra (5.1.14). For example, in connection with the Chitrā-Sacrifice two offerings have been enjoined, both called ‘Sārasvata’, on the ground of one being offered to Sarasvatī, a female Deity, and the other to Sarasvān, a male Deity. In the actual offering of these, the question arises as to which one of the two should be offered first. The Established Conclusion is that the Order of Sequence should be determined by the order at the Primary or Principal Sacrifice. In connection with the Principal Sacrifice, in the Yājyānuvākyā text, the offering to the female Deity is mentioned first; so that the same should be the case at the Subsidiaries also’. (Bhāṣya, Trs., p. 875.)

c30.14

There are some cases where there is conflict among the above six Means of Determining the Order of Sequence among Acts.

c30.15

(1) Sūtra 15 deals with a case where there is conflict between the order indicated by Verbal Texts (No. 3 above) and that indicated by the Principal (No. 6 above). Under the Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa Sacrifice, there are two offerings, the Agniṣomīya and the Upāmshuyāja;—the substance offered at the Agniṣomīya is the Cake, while that used at the Upāmshuyāja is clarified Butter; as regards the *Details*, those of the *Cake* are laid down first, then follow those of the *Clarified Butter*; but as between the two *Principals*—the *Agniṣomīya* and the *Upāṁshuyāja*, the *Upāṁshuyāja* is laid down first, then the *Agniṣomīya*. Now, in regard to the performance of the *Details* at the *Agniṣomīya*, there arises the question—Which are the *Details* to be performed first? Those relating to *Clarified Butter*, on the strength of the *order* of the *Principals*, between which two, the first to be laid down is the *Upāṁshuyāja*, which has the *Clarified Butter* for its material? or, those relating to the *Cake*, on the strength of the *Order of the Verbal Texts*, among which those speaking of the *Cake* come *first*? The *Established Conclusion* on this question is as follows:—*The Order of Sequence, among Subsidiaries should be that indicated by the Verbal Texts*, (Sū. 5.1.15); and the reason for this is that—the order indicated by the *Verbal Texts* is one that is indicated by the injunctions of the *Subsidiaries* themselves; so that if any other *Order* were adopted, the said Injunctions would be violated. Another reason for the superiority of the *Order of the Verbal Texts* is that, it has the support of the specific Injunction of ‘Vedic Study,’ which lays down the study of the Vedic Texts in the order in which they actually appear in the Veda; whereas in support of the *Order of the Principals*, there would be only the extremely subtle Syntactical Connection of the entire body of the texts laying down the performance of the Sacrifice; [*i.e.*, an order, not directly laid down, but only assumed by Inference—adds *Kumārila*]. (*Bhāṣya*, Trs., pp. 876-877).

c30.16

The following explanation has been supplied by *Kumārila*, in the *Ṭupṭikā*:—The ‘Order of Verbal Texts’ is one that is learnt from the ‘Study of the Veda’, wherein the texts are found in a definite order; the *order* therefore is directly perceptible. In the case of the ‘Order of the Principals’, on the other hand, there is, first of all, the practical principle of expediency that all the details should be performed together; thus *concomitance* of the details is indicated by the Injunction of the performance of the Sacrifice; and as a necessary corollary to this concomitance, the *Order of Sequence* also comes to be inferred. Now this *inferred Order of Sequence* is rightly rejected in favour of the *Directly Perceived Order of Sequence* in accordance with the Verbal Texts.

c30.17

Among cases of order determined by *Verbal Texts*, there are some cases where there is conflict between the order of *Sequence* indicated by the *Mantra*-text and that indicated by the *Brāhmaṇa*-text. Where there is such conflict, the order of the *Mantra*-text should be followed, because the capacity to be used as it stands is inherent in the *Mantra*; hence it is that the *Brāhmaṇa*-text is taken as the originative Injunction of Acts, says the *Sūtra* (5.1.16). For instance, in connection with the *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa* it is found that the *Mantra*-texts bearing upon the *Āgnēya*—which forms part of the *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa*, come before,—while the *Brāhmaṇa*-texts bearing upon it come after,—those bearing on the *Agniṣomīya* Sacrifice. That is, the *Agniṣomīya* is laid down by *Brāhmaṇa*-texts occurring in the Fifth *Prapāṭhaka* of the *Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa*, and the *Āgnēya* is laid down by *Brāhmaṇa*-texts occurring in the Sixth *Prapāṭhaka*; but in the *Mantra-Kāṇḍa* the *Mantras* connected with the *Āgnēya* are found before those connected with the *Agniṣomīya*. The Established Conclusion on this point is as follows:—As a matter of fact, the *Mantra* has the capacity to be used as it stands in its own form; it is by nature of this capacity that the *Mantra* is actually used at Sacrifices; hence the Order in which the *Mantra* appears serves a perceptibly useful purpose of being used in that order; as regards the *Brāhmaṇa*-text on the other hand, it serves the other purpose of enjoining the performance of Acts and in most cases, it is not meant to be used in its Verbal form as it stands.—(*Bhāṣya*, Trs., p. 878.)

c30.18

In the case of a number of *Prospective Sacrifices*,—i.e., those performed entirely for the purpose of obtaining a worldly reward,—there is no restriction as to the Order in which they are performed, independently, each by itself. When each is performed by itself, it may be performed at every time that the performer has the desire for securing the particular reward. (*Sūtra*, 5.3.32—36.)

c30.19

(1) '*Iṣṭi*' is the common name applied to all Sacrifices at which the offerings consist of Milk, Butter, Rice, Barley and other grains, and the '*Soma*' is the common name applied to all Sacrifices where the offerings consist of *Soma*-Juice. As between the '*Iṣṭi*' and the '*Soma*' Sacrifices, there is no restriction regarding their relative order of sequence. (*Sū*. 5.4.5—9). There is option as to which is to be performed first. (*a*) For one who is not going to perform the *Soma*-Sacrifice, and who installs the Fire without reference to the *Soma-Sacrifice*, the *Iṣṭi* should come first; (*b*) but if the *Fire-installing* has been done for the purpose of the *Soma-Sacrifice*, then the *Soma-Sacrifice* should come first—says the *Bhāṣya* (Trs., p. 951.)

Cites (3)

Mīmāṃsāsūtra — Jaimini, Sanskrit
Kṛṣṇayajurvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Taittirīyabrāhmaṇa — Sanskrit