Purva-Mimamsa in its Sources c32: Chapter XXVII: ‘Atidesha’—Transference of Details

Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā in its Sources c32

Language: English

Chapter XXVII: ‘Atidesha’—Transference of Details

c32.2

This closes our study of the first Six Discourses of the Sūtra; which, as explained by the Bhāṣya (Trs., p. 1229), have discussed the procedure of the Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa and other Sacrifices, the details of which have been directly prescribed in the Veda, while the later Six Discourses discuss the procedure of the Aindrāgna and such other Sacrifices, the details of whose procedure have not been directly enjoined. Kumārila however, puts the matter somewhat differently:—In the first Six Discourses we have discussed the *direct Injunctions* bearing upon the Archetypal as well as Ectypal Sacrifices, and with the Seventh Discourse begins the discussion of the *Transference* or Extended Application, by *indirect implication*, of details from the sphere of one Sacrifice to that of another. (Ṭupṭīkā.)

c32.3

The conclusion regarding the latter Sacrifices is that these also have all their details; but, not having been directly enjoined for them, these details come to them through Atidesha, Transference. This ‘Transference’ is that process by which the details prescribed in connection with one Sacrifice are extended beyond that Sacrifice and transfered to another Sacrifice. For instance, after having given full directions regarding the feeding of Dēvadatta, one says ‘Feed Yajñadatta also like Dēvadatta’. This Transference can be done either by Name or by a Declaration. The Name that is made such a means of Transference is of three kinds—(1) Name of the Act, (2) Name of the Embellishment and (3) Etymological Name. The Declaration is of two kinds—(1) Direct (Perceptible) and (2) Indirect (Inferred).—(Bhāṣya, Trs., pp. 1239-1240).

c32.4

There are several Sacrifices in connection with which the Veda does not specifically prescribe all the necessary details, but declares that ‘such and such a Sacrifice shall be performed in the manner of such and such another Sacrifice’; for instance, with regard to the Iṣu-Sacrifice, after having declared its peculiar features, the Vedic text goes on to declare that ‘the rest is like the Shyēna-Sacrifice’. In such cases, the Shyēna-Sacrifice would be called the *Prakṛti*, Archetype, and the *Iṣu-Sacrifice*, the corresponding *Vikṛti*, Ectype. The *Transference*, then, of the details of the Archetype to the Ectype is what is called *Atideśa*, which has been defined as ‘that process whereby a detail becomes extended in its application from the Primary act to other acts cognate to it’. (Bhā. Trs. p. 1239). The *Prakaraṇapañchikā* (p. 227) has defined it as ‘that through which the Ectype becomes connected with the details of the Archetypal Sacrifice’, or ‘the Extension of the details of one Sacrifice to another, when there is no incongruity in such extension’.

c32.5

Before proceeding with the main subject of Transference, *Jaimini* has devoted the first twelve *Sūtras* of Discourse 7, to the discussion of a question upon which the whole subject of Transference rests. In the context of the *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa* Sacrifice, the Vedic text has enjoined the *Prayāja*-offerings as the subsidiary details. The question to be considered is—Are these *Prayājas* meant for the *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa* only or for all Sacrifices? This enquiry becomes necessary at this stage, because, if the subsidiaries laid down under one context are intended by the Veda for all Sacrifices, then the *Prayāja*-offerings appertain as much to the *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa* as to any other Sacrifice; so that in this case, the question of the Transference of the details does not arise at all; as the details appertain to all Sacrifices equally. If however the details mentioned under the Context of one Sacrifice appertain to that Sacrifice *only*, then, if there is need for them in other Sacrifices, they can go over to these latter only by Transference; and in this case alone could these latter Sacrifices be the Ectypes of the former Sacrifice which, thus, would be the Archetype. It is only in this case that there would be an occasion for the consideration of the subject of Transference and other cognate subjects dealt with by the *Sūtra* in Discourses 7 to 12.

c32.6

This question,—as to whether the Details laid down in the section on *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa* belong to these alone or to all Sacrifices, turns upon the further question as to whether the performance of the said Details is meant only for the accomplishment of the Sacrifices, or for the bringing about of an *Apūrva*; because, in the former case, as all Sacrifices would be equally Sacrifice, what is laid down for the fulfilment of the ‘Sacrifice’ would naturally be related to all Sacrifices equally,—while, in the latter case, the details would be related to only one Apūrva, and this one Apūrva could not but be the one following from the Sacrifice in whose context the details would be mentioned; as it is only of such Sacrifices, that the said Details could be *Subsidiary*—as explained under Discourse III. And in this case therefore, the Details in question would appertain definitely to only one Sacrifice, and they could become connected with other Sacrifices only through Transference.

c32.7

The *Established Conclusion* on this question is that the said Details are related to the Apūrva, as is clearly indicated by the requirements of the Context. (Sū. 7.1.1—12).

c32.8

Before we deal with the special cases of Transference, we have to note that there is Transference, not only of Actions or *Procedure*, but also of other Sacrificial Details, like *Substances* and so forth. Says the *Prakaraṇapañchikā* (p. 227) अतिदेशः प्रकारस्य धर्माणां चैव युज्यते। It is only of the *Result* that there is no Transference, as explained under *Sūtra* 7.1.20—22. The only general law relating to Transference is प्रकृतिवद् विकृतिः कर्तव्या ‘The Ectype is to be performed in the manner of the Archetype’; *e.g.*, the *Iṣu*-Sacrifice in the manner of the *Shyena*-Sacrifice and so forth. What is meant by this ‘manner of the Archetype’ is that all those details and accessories which are necessary in the performance of the Ectype, and yet are not found to be enjoined directly in reference to that Ectype, are to be brought in, transferred to, it from the Archetype. It is true, as the *Prakaraṇapañchikā* remarks (p. 226), that the first of the Details that come up for Transference are those constituting the *Procedure*; but that is not all; if the offering-material has not been laid down in connection with the Ectype specifically, that also has to be brought in from the Archetype; similarly, other accessory details that might be wanting. Nor does this in any way militate against the opening *Sūtras* of Discourse 10, because there we have the denial of the Transference of only such details of the Archetype as have had their purpose already fulfilled, and which, on that account, could serve no useful purpose at the Ectype;—similarly under *Sū*. 5.1.19, we have an instance of the details of the Archetype not being transferred to the Ectype, through the force of Direct Declaration, whose authority is above everything, and so also above the General Law regarding the Transference of Details from the Archetype to the Ectype. Thus then, the Transference of Details being in accordance with the actual needs of the Ectypal Sacrifice, the need or motive that prompts this Transference may lie either in some transcendental Result expected to follow from what is transferred, or in some purely visible result expected to be accomplished better by what is transferred than by any other means. (*Prakaraṇapañchikā* p. 227).

c32.9

The question then that is to be dealt with is—In what cases is the Transference possible or desirable? And in what cases is it not so? It is on this question that the second half of the *Sūtras* of *Jaimini* (Discourses 7 to 12) turns.

c32.10

This Transference of Details is regulated by (1) Context (*Prakaraṇa*) and (2) Position (*Sthāna*) For instance, (1) the details of one Sacrifice will be transferred to another only if the two are found enjoined in the same Context; this is the reason why the details of the *Shyēna-Sacrifice* are transferred to the *Iṣu-Sacrifice*, not to the *Saurya* or other Sacrifices; and (2) in this Transference, that which occupies the Position of the Deity at the Archetype shall take the same place at the Ectype to which it is transferred; what appears in the Archetype as the offering-material shall be used at the Ectype also as the offering-material.

c32.11

Primarily, there are four kinds of Transference. (1) Transference by Direct Injunction; *e.g.*, with regard to the *Iṣu-Sacrifice*, we have the Direct Injunction to the effect that ‘The rest of it is like the *Shyēna*’; which enjoins the Transference of the Details of the *Shyēna-Sacrifice* to the *Iṣu-Sacrifice*. (*Vide* Sū. 7. 1. 13—16). (2) Transference by Presumed Injunction; *e.g.*, in connection with the *Saurya-Sacrifice* we find no accessory details prescribed; we know at the same time that no sacrifice can be performed without certain details; we know also that the *Saurya* bears a close relationship to the *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa-Sacrifice*; from all this we are led to the natural presumption that the details necessary for the *Saurya* are to be transferred to it from the *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa*; and this Presumption leads to the Inference of an Injunction sanctioning such Transference. (*Vide* Sū. 7. 4. 1). (3) Transference through Name; *e.g.*, the *Māsāgnihotra* has not all its details laid down in connection with itself; and these details are transfered to it from the Primary *Agnihotra*; the only justification for this transference lies in the name ‘*Agnihotra*’ which is common to both. (Vide Sū. 7. 3. 1—4)—[That the Māsāgnihotra is entirely different from the Agnihotra has been shown in the Sū. 2. 3. 24]. (4) Transference through the name of Embellishments (Saṁskāras); e.g., in connection with the Varuṇapraghāsa-Sacrifice, we find the Avabhṛtha Bath enjoined;—this Avabhṛtha-Bath is an Embellishment the details whereof have been prescribed in connection with Agniṣṭoma-Sacrifice; now this same name ‘Avabhṛtha’, occuring in connection with the Bath connected with the Varuṇapraghāsa, leads to the conclusion that the details of this Bath are to be transferred to the Varuṇapraghāsa from those enjoined in connection with the Agniṣṭoma. (Vide Sū. 7. 3. 12—15). In this connection, regarding Transference through Name, some writers have introduced a third kind of Name—the ‘name’ applying to the Sacrifice in its literal signification; this literal signification of the names of Sacrifices being, according to these writers, a guide as to the Transference of Details to them. (See Mīmāṁsābālprakāśa pp. 118-119). This view however has been rejected by Kumārila (Ṭupṭikā 7. 1. 5), who says—यौगिकं नातिदेशकम् ‘No name, in its etymological sense can be indicative of Transference’.

c32.12

‘Transference by Presumed Injunction’ is of three kinds—(1)Transference of Injunction;—an example of this we have cited above; in connection with the Saurya and the Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa:—(2) Transference of Substratum; and instance of this is found under Sū. 2. 1. 25-26, where it is shown that the Sentence—‘One should make an offering of Curds if the Sacrificer be desirous of acquiring efficient Sense-organs’—enjoins only a particular substance in the shape of Curds; and the Substratum of this offering—i.e., the Sacrifice at which the Curd is to be offered, is got at through Transference,—the Agnihotra being the Sacrifice at which the said Curd-offering is to be made;—(3) Transference of Substitutes; an instance of this has been mentioned under, Sū. 3. 5. 47—51; where we find that in the event of certain Sacrifices being performed by the Kṣattriya or the Vaiśya, it has been laid down that when these persons, as Sacrificers, wish to eat the ‘Remnant’, they are to be given, not the Remnant of the Soma-juice, but a decoction of Vaṭa-seeds mixed with Curds; from this Injunction of the Substitute for Soma-juice, it is inferred that the said decoction is to be substituted, not for the Eating only, but also for the offering; that is, when the Sacrifice is performed by the Kṣattriya or the Vaishya, the substance *offered* at the Sacrifice is to consist of the said Decoction,—not of *Soma*-juice.

c32.13

Under Sū. 8. 1. 1-2—it is shown that when certain particular details are to be transferred to any Sacrifice, those details should, as a rule, be those that have been enjoined in connection with any *one Sacrifice*,—they should not be borrowed from several Sacrifices;—and the General Principle governing such Transference is as follows:—‘When the slightest common factor,—in the shape of Word, Sense, Offering-Material, Deity, or the Form or other qualifications of these—happen to be perceived (between two Sacrifices), the Procedure of the one should be adopted at the other’. (*Bhāṣya*, Trs., p. 1322).

c32.14

CHAPTER XXVIII

c32.15

CHA—MODIFICATION

c32.16

We have seen that in several cases, the Accessory Details of one Sacrifice are *transferred* to another Sacrifice. In some cases it so happens that the particular Detail so transferred does not quite fit in with the other details of the Sacrifice to which it has been transferred. In this case therefore, the detail *transferred* has to be ‘modified’ to suit the exigencies of the Sacrifice to which it has been transferred. This ‘Modification’ of Details we have to consider now.

c32.17

As a preliminary to the discussion on Modification, it is necessary to consider the question—Are the details in question prompted by—that is, performed for the purpose of accomplishing—the transcendental *Apūrva*, or by the Sacrificial Act? If they are prompted by the *Apūrva*, then alone is the Modification possible; as the *Apūrva* of every Sacrifice is different from that of another Sacrifice; if, on the other hand, they are prompted by the Sacrificial Act, then there would be a commixture of Details; because all Sacrifices are equally ‘Sacrificial Acts’, hence all details would be admissible at all.

c32.18

The question has been placed in another way also in the *Bhāṣya* (Trs. P. 1418-1419): (1) Are the Details contingent upon the Sacrificial Act and prompted by the *Apūrva*? or are they both contingent upon, and prompted by, the *Apūrva*? The answer is that the details are prompted by the *Apūrva* (Bhā. Trs. p. 1419); and also contingent upon the *Apūrva*. Hence the conclusion is that the *Apūrva* is the prompter as well as the contingent cause of the Details. (Bhā. Trs. p. 1420).

c32.19

The following are a few instances of Details prompted by and related to the *Apūrva*:—(1) The Details of the *Agnihotra* are related to the *Apūrva* (Sū. 9.1.1.); (2) The loudness or otherwise of the recitation of a *Mantra* is related to the final *Apūrva*. (Sū. 9.1.3); (3) the Details connected with the Fruit and the Deity are regulated by, and related to, the *Apūrva*. (9.1. 4-5.)

Linked texts (1)

Mīmāṃsāsūtra — Jaimini, Sanskrit