Purva-Mimamsa in its Sources c32.11

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’.