Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Purva-Mimamsa in its Sources c33: Chapter XXVIII: Modification

Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā in its Sources c33

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XXVIII: Modification

c33.1

In connection with the last instance, we find the important principle enunciated that Details are not prompted by the Deity; that is, details are not dependent upon the nature of the Deity. This is an important matter, as setting forth the Mīmāmsaka's conception of the Dēvatā, Deity, of Sacrifices. We shall therefore set forth the Topic in some detail.

c33.2

The *Prima Facie View* has been thus set forth in the *Bhāṣya* (Trs., p. 1429). "The Deity should be taken as prompting the Details of the Sacrifice, because the Feeding is for the sake of the Deity, as in the case of the Guest—(Sū. 9.1.6.) All Deities should be regarded as prompters of Details; because what is called 'Sacrifice' is only the 'Feeding of the Deity'; what is done at the Sacrifice is that an eatable substance is offered to the Deity; and the act is that of *giving or offering*, of which the Deity is the recipient; in this way the Deity cannot be regarded as a subordinate factor; on the contrary, the Substance offered and the act of offering are both subordinate to the Deity. Then again, the Sacrifice is a form of worship of the Deity, and the act of worship must be subordinate to the object worshipped. The case of the Deity should be analogical to the case of the Guest; whatever service is rendered to the Guest is regarded as prompted by the Guest; similarly, whatever is done in the course of the Sacrificial Offering to the Deities, should be regarded as prompted by these Deities. It has to be admitted, in this connection, that the Deity has a physical body and actually eats what is offered. That this is so is clearly indicated (*a*) by *Smṛti-texts*, (*b*) by *Custom* and (*c*) by *Indicative Vedic Texts*. (*A*) There are *Smṛti-texts* clearly declaring that Deities have material bodies, and *Smṛti-texts* are authoritative; (*b*) it is customary with people to treat the Deity as having a material body; for instance, they paint the Deity *Varuṇa* with a noose in his hand, and so forth; (*c*) lastly, there is a Vedic text where the Deity *Indra* is accosted with the words—'O, Indra, I take hold of your right hand'.—That the Deity actually eats the offerings is laso indicated by—(*a*) *Smṛti-texts*, (*b*) *Custom* and (*c*) *Indicative Vedic texts*. (*a*) There are *Smṛti-texts* actually asserting that the Deities eat the things offered; (*b*) People treat Deities as if they actually ate the offerings; and (*c*) There are such Vedic texts as clearly indicate such eating and drinking by Deities; *e.g.*, the Mantra addressed to *Indra* says:—'O, Indra please eat and drink what has been offered.' That the substances offered are still visible is due to the fact that it is only the Essence of the Substances that is eaten or drunk by the Deities. From the same sources again, we learn that Deities own property also; for instance, (*a*) there are *Smṛti-texts* declaring that the Deity owns property; (*b*) the *Custom* is current of dedicating landed property to Deities; (*c*) *Vedic texts* speak of Indra as the ‘master of Heaven’, which also indicates that Deities own property. (Sū. 9.1.7.)”

c33.3

As against the above *Prima Facie View*, the *Established Conclusion*, set forth under Sū. 9.1. 9-10, is as follows:—*In fact, it is the objective of the Sacrifice—i.e., the Apūrva—that should be regarded as the principal factor; because the matter is one that can be determined only by the Vedic Word; and the Deity is spoken of only as a subordinate factor.* (Sū. 9.1.9.). The Vedic Word clearly asserts that the Fruit of the Sacrifice proceeds from the act of Sacrifice, not from the Deity. The Deity and the offering-material are both accomplished entities, while the Act of Sacrifice is what is to be accomplished; from all this it is clear that the Deity cannot be the prompter of Details. In fact, that alone can be regarded as the prompter of Details which brings about the desired Result; hence it is the Apūrva that should be regarded as the Prompter of the Details. The view set forth above makes it necessary to admit of Deities having material bodies and actually eating and drinking the Substances offered; and this idea is utterly repugnant to the Veda, which does not lend support to any such idea regarding Deities. The text quoted above regarding the ‘right hand’ of Indra does *not* mean that ‘Indra has got a right hand’; what it means is—‘We have taken hold of what is Indra’s right hand’; because even so, the text cannot be taken as literally true; because even if Indra has a ‘right hand’, it cannot be possible for any human being to ‘take hold’ of it. As regards the invocational words addressed to the Deity, these are not meant to be addressed literally; they are meant only to indicate the particular Deity; and the sense of the invocational words would be mere eulogy, the sense of the Eulogy being that ‘the Deity is such an efficient instrument of accomplishing the desired result that it accomplishes it, on being invoked, in the same manner as ordinary persons equipped with bodies and organs, etc.’ Having been thus invoked, if the Deity is told ‘I have taken hold of your hand’, all that these words mean is that ‘we are dependent upon you’, and this serves the purpose of reminding us that we should proceed to perform the rites in honour of this particular Deity. As regards the text speaking of the ‘fist of Indra holding Heaven and Earth’, all that it means is the praise of Indra, the sense being that ‘Indra is such a being that if he had a fist, it would be so large as to be able to hold Heaven and Earth’. Thus there is no Vedic text that could justify the presumption that Deities have bodies like human beings. The texts that speak of the ‘arms’ of Indra being ‘hairy’, or his eyes as ‘tawny’,—all these are purely eulogistic. Nor is there actual feeding or eating at Sacrifices; in fact, the Deity never eats; hence the argument that ‘the feeding is for the Deity’ (Sū. 9.1.6) is not true. In fact, the idea of the Deities actually eating the offering-materials is negatived by the fact that Deities have no material body. If the Deities actually ate the substances offered, then these would diminish in quantity. Nor is there any proof for the assertion that “the Deities partake of the Essence only of the viands offered and hence there is no dimnishing of the quantity.” We cannot therefore accept the notion that the Deities actually eat the offerings. Then again, it is not possible for the Deity to own property; and not owning anything, it cannot give anything; the texts generally quoted as indicative of the fact of Deities owning property are purely eulogistic. From all this it follows that the Deity cannot be the prompter of Details. The case of the Deities is not the same as that of the Guest. (*Bhāṣya*, Trs., pp. 1432–1437.)

c33.4

According to the *Bhaṭṭabhāskara* (MS., pp. 92-93) there are three means of ascertaining the ‘Deity’ of a particular Sacrifice.—(1) Nominal Affixes—for instance, the term ‘*Āgnēya*’ is formed of the noun ‘*Agni*’ with the nominal affix ‘*dhak*,’ according to Pāṇini 4.2.24; so that *Agni* becomes indicated as the ‘Deity’ of the *Āgnēya-Sacrifice*; (see Mī. Sū. 10.4.25);—(2) the Dative Ending;—when it is said ‘*Agnayē yajati*’, ‘Sacrifices to Agni’, *Agni* is indicated as the ‘Deity’ of the Sacrifice. This latter is weaker in authority than the former, because the Deity, not being a personal entity, cannot be the ‘recipient of a gift’ in the real sense of the term; this ‘recipientship’ being what is denoted by the Dative, the Dative can apply to the Deity only figuratively, while the exact signification of the nominal affix ‘*dhak*’ is ‘Deityship’, ‘*āgnēya*’ being that ‘of which *Agni* is the Deity,’ and this is applicable to *Agni* directly. ((3) Mantras—Some word or expression in the *Mantras* also serve to indicate the Deity; *e.g.*, the Mantra ‘*Kētum kṛṇvannakētavē, etc.*’ indicates *Ketu* as the Deity.

c33.5

This *Modification*—*Uha*—is of two kinds—(1) one that is directly laid down; for instance, when it is declared that at the Ectype, a certain corn has to be thumped once, and not as many times as may be necessary for the removal of the chaff, as is done at the Archetype; and the *Mantra* accompanying the thumping is also to be recited only once. (2) That which is inferred or presumed; this latter is of three kinds—(*a*) The *Modification* of the *Mantra*; *e.g.*, at the *Āgnēya-Sacrifice*, the substance offered is the *Vrīhi*-corn, and the offering is made to *Agni*, and the *Mantra* used is—‘*Agnayē tvā juṣṭam nirvapāmi . . . vrīhiṇām sumanasyamānaḥ*’ (*Vājasa*—Sam. 1.13); this *Āgnēya-Sacrifice* is the Archetype, of which the *Saurya-Sacrifice* is an Ectype; but at this latter the substance offered is the *Nīvāra* corn; and the offerings are made to *Sūrya*; in view of these facts, certain *Modifications* in the accompanying *Mantra* appear to be called for; consequently, even though there is no Vedic Injunction laying down such modifications of the *Mantra*, the necessary Injunction is inferred from the needs of the situation and the *Mantra* is used in the form— “*Sūryāya* (instead of *Agnayē*) *tvā juṣṭam nirvapāmi . . . nīvārāṇām* (instead of ‘*vrīhiṇām*’) *sumanasyamānaḥ*”—(*Sūtra* 9.3. 1-2). (*b*) The second kind of *Modification* is that of the *Sāman*; for instance, for the *Vaishyastoma* Sacrifice, the *Kaṇvarathantara* has been prescribed; while at the original Sacrifice as performed by *Brāhmaṇas*, of which the *Vaishyastoma* is the Ectype,—the *Samans* used are the *Bṛhat* and the *Rathantara*. The question then arises as to whether the *Sāman* at the *Vaishyastoma* is to be sung in the manner of both the *Samans* of the Archetype or of one of these only. In the answer to this there is a marked difference between *Shabara* and *Kumārila*: According to *Shabara*, (Trs., p. 1543) it has to be sung in the manner of both,—there being an option only with regard to such details of singing in which the *Bṛhat* is directly incompatible with the *Rathantara*; as for instance, while the *Bṛhat* is sung loudly, the *Rathantara* is sung *not-loudly*;—according to *Kumārila* (*Ṭuṇṭikā*) on the other hand, there is option in regard to all the details of singing; that is to say, when singing the *Kaṇvarathantara* at the *Vaishyastoma*, one should sing either wholly like *Bṛhat*, or wholly like *Rathantara*.

c33.6

(Sū. 9.2.48). (c) The third kind of Modification is that of the *Embellishment*; for the *Vājapeya-Sacrifice* the *Nivāra*-corn has been prescribed; while at its Archetype, the corn used is the *Vrīhi*, in connection with which, *washing, thumping*, and other *Embellishments* have been prescribed. Though no such *Embellishments* have been directly prescribed for the *Nivāra*-corn, yet they have to be done in connection with this latter also; for the simple reason that without such *Embellishments*, the corn would not be fit for use at Sacrifices. (Sū. 9.2.40.)

c33.7

The Modification of Mantra again is of various kinds. The *Mīmāmsā-bālaprakāsha* (p. 131, et. seq.) has noted the following ten kinds:—(1) Alteration of the Basic Noun;—‘*Agnaye*’ changed into ‘*Sūryāya*’ (see above);—(2) Alteration of Gender; the Mantra ‘*Vasvyasī rudrāsi, etc.*’ (Feminine) is addressed to the Heifer; and it is changed into ‘*Vasvasi rudrosi*’ (Masculine) when addressed to the Calf;—(3) Alteration of Number: the Mantra ‘*Chhāgasya vapayā, etc.*’ is changed into ‘*Chhāgānām vapaya, etc.*’ (Plural) at the *Prājāpatya-Sacrifice*, where there are several goats concerned; (4) Alteration of the Basic Noun and Gender; e.g., ‘*Agnaye juṣṭam*’ is changed into ‘*Adityai juṣṭam*’:—(5) Alteration of Basic Noun and Number: e.g., ‘*Agnaye juṣṭam*’ is changed into ‘*Vishvēbhyo dēvebhyo juṣṭam*’;—(6) Alteration of Number and Gender; ‘*Prāsmai agnim, etc.*’ changed into ‘*Prābhyah agnim*’; (not so according to *Shabara*, see Trs., p. 1572)—(7) Alteration of the Basic Noun, Gender and Number: for the consecration of the water used for the washing of the corn, we have the Mantra ‘*Apodēvīḥ shuddhāḥ sthaḥ*’, where the words ‘*Apodēvīḥ, etc.*’ are Feminine-Plural; this same Mantra when used for the consecration of Clarified Butter, is read as ‘*Ghṛtadēva-shuddhamasi*’; (8) Alteration of the form of repeating the whole of the original twice over; e.g., in the cutting of the Skin, the Mantra used begins with ‘*Ekadhā*’, when there is only one skin; when there are two skins concerned, the Mantra begins as ‘*Ekadhē-Ekadhē*’ (Sū. 9.3. 29—31); (9) Alteration of the word with the Nominal Affix; e.g., the Mantra—‘*Mitrāvaruṇau tvā uttarataḥ, etc.*’ (Vājasa-Sam. 2.3) is changed into ‘*Mitrāvaruṇau tvā purastāt, etc*’; (10) Alteration of Indeclinables; e.g., the Mantra—‘*Agnim gṛhṇāmi . . . . shvo yajñāya ramatām*’ is changed into ‘. . . . *adya yajñāya, etc.*’, where for ‘*shvaḥ*’ in the original, we have ‘*adya*’ in the Modification.

c33.8

In this connection, it has to be noted that the *Mantra* in its modified form is not regarded as ‘*Mantra*’ in the strict sense of the term; even though it serves the purpose of a *Mantra*, it is not a *Mantra*, it is only an auxiliary to the *Mantra*; the reason for this lies in the fact that the learned do not regard the *modified Mantra* as ‘*Mantra*’, and it is entirely upon the usage of the learned that it depends whether or not a certain text is to be regarded as ‘*Mantra*’. (Sū. 2.1.34; *Bṛhatī*. M.S., 50B).—(See above.)

c33.9

CHAPTER XXIX

c33.10

‘BADHA’—EXCLUSION

c33.11

We have seen that under the General Law—that ‘The Ectype should be performed in the manner of the Archetype’—certain accessory details are ‘transferred’ to the Ectype from the Archetype;—also that in certain cases, there is ‘modification’, at the Ectype, of details ‘transferred’ to it from the Archetype; now we proceed a step further and consider those cases where there is complete ‘Exclusion’ (Suspension or Anulment) at the Ectype of the details which are indicated as to be ‘transferred’ from the Archetype to the Ectype.

c33.12

The General Principle on this subject of Exclusion has been discussed under Sūtras 10.1. 1—3. (Bhāṣya, Trs., p. 1635) et. seq.). The question has been put in the Bhāṣya thus—When the details of the Archetype are indicated as to be ‘transferred’ to the Ectype,—by virtue of the General Law that ‘the Ectype is to be performed in the manner of the Archetype’,—are all the details of the Archetype to be adopted at the Ectype? or is there anything that may be excluded?

c33.13

On this question, the Prima Facie View is as follows:—“*In as much as the entire procedure of the Archetype is transferred to the other Context—i.e., to the Ectype,—without any reservation,—it follows that all the details should be adopted.*” (Sū. 10.1.1)”.

c33.14

The Established Conclusion however is that—*In reality, it is only when the need is there that the Mantra, the Embellishment or the Substance is to be employed.* (Sū. 10.1.2). As a matter of fact, it is not right that all the Details of the Archetype should be adopted at the Ectype; in some cases, the Mantra or the Embellishment or the Substance—used at the Archetype—becomes excluded from the Ectype, when its need has ceased. Every one of these Details is used only when there is need for it. There is no Vedic text laying down the use of anything that is not needed. In fact, the Ectype is not syntactically related to the Archetype at all; all that the text enjoining the Ectype means is that ‘the desired result should be accomplished by means of the Ectype’; and the manner of this accomplishment is indicated by the General Law—‘in the same manner in which it is accomplished by the Archetype’; and the effect of this is that those details that are adopted at the Archetype for the fulfilling of a certain need become excluded from the Ectype, if there is no need for them at the latter; hence the conclusion is that the General law does not indicate the employment at the Ectype of those details of the Archetype of which the need has ceased. For example, (a) at the Archetype, the *Kusha-grass* has got to be lopped with special *Mantras*; but in connection with the Ectype, it is said that ‘the grass used should be that which has fallen off by itself’; hence there is no need for the adopting of the grass lopped with special *Mantras*. (*Bhāṣya*. Trs., pp. 1636-1637.) (b) In connection with the Ectype, it is enjoined that ‘the *Charu-offering* is to consist of a *Hundred Gold Pieces*’; of this special kind of ‘Charu’ there can be no ‘threshing’ which has been enjoined in connection with the ‘Charu-offering’ of Rice, offered at the Archetype; this threshing therefore, not being needed in the case of the gold pieces becomes excluded from the Ectype. (*Bhāṣya*, Trs., p. 1638.) (c) Similarly at the *Charu-offering* to *Vishvēdēvas*, the Invocation to *Viṣṇu* becomes excluded, as there is no need for it. (Bhā., Trs., p. 1639.)

c33.15

In regard to case (b) above, that of the offering consisting of gold-pieces, there is a counter-exception; we have seen above that the ‘threshing’ has become excluded from it; now it would seem that the ‘Cooking’ also, that is done at the Archetype, to the grain-offering, should be excluded from the gold-pieces; as there is no need for *cooking* in their case. But there is a direct Injunction laying down the ‘cooking’ of the gold-pieces ‘in Clarified Butter’; and by virtue of this Injunction, it has to be done,—though not for the purpose for which it is done at the Archetype. (Sū. 10.2. 1-2. Bhā., Trs., p. 1076.)

c33.16

There are two kinds of this *Exclusion* (*Bādha*)—(See *Mīmāṁsābālaprakāsha*, p. 131 et. seq.) (1) *Prāpta-bādha* (or *Pramēyāpahāra* as called by Pārthasārathi Mishra)—is the ‘Exclusion’ of a Modification indicated by ‘Transference’;—this *Exclusion* applies to the Modification which is, by its very nature, inadmissible;—(2) *Aprāptabādha* (called *Mūlochcheda* by Pārthasārathi Mishra),—is the ‘Exclusion’ of a Modification not indicated by any of the valid forms of ‘Transference’, which is therefore not admissible. The *Prāpta-bādha* again has been divided into two kinds—(*a*) ‘Exclusion’, through the Six Means of Right Cognition, Sense-perception and the rest,—and (*b*) ‘Exclusion’ on the strength of ‘Scripture’. Of this latter again, there are several subdivisions. For instance—(*a*) What has been laid down as to be done under normal conditions is *excluded* by what has been laid down as to be done under special circumstances of the case; for instance, *Fifteen Sāmidhēnī* verses have been laid down as to be recited at the *Darsha-Sacrifice*, and it is also laid down that if the *Sacrificer* happens to be a *Vaishya*, the number of *Sāmidhēnī*-verses to be recited should be *Seventeen*; accordingly under the latter circumstances, *seventeen* are recited. (*b*) What has been enjoined as merely helping in the accomplishment of the Sacrificial act is ‘excluded’ in favour of what has been enjoined as accomplishing a result desired by the Sacrificer; *e.g.*, in regard to the same *Sāmidhēnī* verses, it has been laid down that, in the event of the Sacrificer being desirous of acquiring ‘fame’ or ‘honour’, the number of verses should be *twenty-one*; this number thus excludes the *fifteen* and *seventeen* mentioned above. (*c*) That which has gone before becomes ‘excluded’ by what comes after it; *e.g.*, in connection with the going of the Priests out of *Havirdhāna*, it is laid down that—‘If the *Udgātṛ*-Priest breaks the line, the Sacrifice should be finished without Fees; if the *Pratihartṛ* breaks it, the Sacrificer should give away ‘all his belongings’;—now if it so happens that the line is broken by both these Priests, the Sacrificer has to give away ‘all his belongings.’—the latter rule ‘excluding’ the former. (*d*) What serves no useful purpose becomes ‘excluded’; *e.g.*, the process laid down for the removal of chaff from the grain to be offered becomes excluded at the Ectype when the offering consists of ‘gold-pieces’. (See above). (*e*) Some details that are ‘transferable’ from the Archetype to the Ectype under the General Law, are ‘excluded’ by Direct Assertion in the Veda itself prohibiting such details; *e.g.*, the Appointment of the *Hotṛ*-Priest is ‘excluded’ from the *Paitṛ-Sacrifice*. (*f*) A ‘transferable’ Substance becomes ‘excluded’ by the Direct Injunction of another Substance for the same purpose; *e.g.*, at the *Shyēna-Sacrifice*, the *Kusha* is ‘excluded’ by Reeds; and though the Fee prescribed at the Archetypal *Agnyādhāna* is the Cow, it becomes ‘excluded’ from the Ectypal *Agnyādhānas* by ‘the old cart duly repaired’, which is the fee specially prescribed for the latter.

c33.17

(Sū. 10.3. 30—33.) (g) What is laid down by the General Rule is ‘excluded’ by the Special Rule; *e.g.*, in connection with the *Varuṇapraghāsa*, there is a Substance specially prescribed, in the shape of the *Viṣkāsa* (the whey, left after the removal of the curdled pieces of milk); and this ‘excludes’ the *Cake* which would come into the *Varuṇapraghāsa* by the General Law regarding the Ectype being performed in the manner of the Archetype. (Sū. 7.3.16.) (h) The *Useless* is ‘excluded’ by the *Useful*; *e.g.*, among the *Mantras* laid down as to be recited as ‘*Nigadas*’,—*i.e.*, words addressed to others,—there are some *Yajuṣ* texts also;—with regard to the reciting of the *Yajuṣ-texts* it is laid down that it should be done *not-loudly*—*Silently*;—now if, the words meant to be addressed to others were recited *Silently*, they would entirely fail in their purpose; for this reason, the ‘silent’ ‘reciting’ of the *Yajuṣ* becomes, in this case, ‘excluded’ by the ‘loud reciting’, which would serve a *useful* purpose when heard by the other person to whom it is addressed. (i) The *Smaller* is ‘excluded’ by the *Larger*; *e.g.*, in connection with the *Pañchadasharātra-Sacrifice*, when we come to the matter of ‘names’, we find that the single name ‘*Agniṣṭut*’,—which would indicate the reciting of the *Āgnēyī Subrahmaṇyā* verse—is ‘excluded’ in favour of the several names ‘*Jyotiṣ*’ and the rest, by virtue of which the *Āindrī Subrahmaṇyā* is recited. (j) That which has room for itself elsewhere becomes ‘excluded’ by that which, if not adopted on the occasion in question, would have no place anywhere else; *e.g.*, with reference to the recitation preceeding the *Agniṣomīya* offering, it is laid down that it is to be done *silently*; but with regard to the *Dīkṣaṇīyā Iṣṭi*, a distinct accent has been prescribed, showing that the *Mantras* have to be recited loudly enough to allow of the accentuation being marked;—now as regards this latter recitation, the *Silent* method is ‘excluded’ in favour of the *louder*, in view of the fact that the *Silent* method, if dropped at the *Dīkṣaṇīyā*, could still be adopted at the recitations on other occasions, while the particular *accent*, if dropped at the *Dīkṣaṇīyā* Recitation, could not be adopted at any other recitation; so that it would be dropped entirely; which cannot be permitted in regard to anything that has been directly enjoined in the Veda.

c33.18

In all these cases we had the ‘Exclusion’ of details the adoption of which was indicated by some valid Means of Knowledge. There is ‘Exclusion’ also of such things as do not have their adoption

c33.19

CHAPTER XXIX: EXCLUSION

c33.20

indicatd by any valid means. As there can be no limit to such things, the number of ‘Exclusions’ of this kind cannot be fixed. *Śaṅkara-Bhaṭṭa* enumerates and exemplifies no less than 556 ‘Exclusions’ of this class. (See *Mīmāṃsābālaprakāsha*, pp. 134—137.)

c33.21

There are several instances, where there is ‘Exclusion’, not of all the details transferable from the Archetype, but of only a portion of these. For instance, for the *baking* of the Cake dedicated to *Agni*, eight Pans have been prescribed, in connection with the *Āgnēya*-Sacrifice;—in connection with its Ectype, the offering to *Dyāvāpṛthvī*, only one Pan is prescribed; hence when transferring the Pan from the *Āgnēya* to the Ectypal offering, only one of the eight pans shall be brought in,—and that too only the *first*,—and the remaining *seven* shall be ‘excluded’. (Sū. 10—5.1—3.)

c33.22

In some cases of *Transference* the order of the details transferred is altered; for instance, at the Archetypal *Jyotiṣṭoma*-Sacrifice, there are certain Cups dedicated to certain Deities;—when these are ‘transferred’ to the Ectype, the order in which they were held at the Archetype,—when the cup dedicated to *Indra* came first,—is changed and the cup held first is that dedicated to *Shukra*; and this is in accordance with the Direct Injunction to that effect. (Sū. 10.5. 67—69.) This change of order has been called ‘*Pratikarṣa*’.

c33.23

In some cases the Details ‘transferred’ from the Archetype are not sufficient for the Ectype; *e.g.*, at the Archetype only *fifteen Sāmans* are sung, while for the Ectype, *twenty-one* have been prescribed; in this case the remaining *Six Sāmans* have to be *added* over and above the *fifteen* transferred from the Archetype; and the number *twenty-one* is not to be made up by repeating *twice* Six out of the same *fifteen Sāmans*. (Sū. 10.5. 15—25.) Similarly, the Archetypal *Jyotiṣṭoma* is performed by only one Sacrificer; but the Ectypal *Sattra* must have seventeen Sacrificers, according to a Direct Injunction to that effect. (Sū. 10.6. 45—50.)

c33.24

The Subject of *Bādha*, ‘Exclusion’, leads on to that of its antithesis, *Samuchchaya*, ‘Inclusion’, or ‘Combination’; by virtue of which there is ‘Combination’ of what is prescribed for the Ectype specifically with what is ‘transferred’ to it from the Archetype. For instance, in connection with the *Nakṣatrēṣṭi*, certain additional Libations have been prescribed as to be poured after the principal offerings,—these libations being offered to the *Kṛttikās*, to *Amba* and to *Dulā*;—at the Archetype however, after the principal offerings, come the *Nāriṣṭa-homas*; these *Nāriṣṭa-homas* are transferable to the *Nakṣatreṣṭi*; and in this case there is no ‘exclusion’ from the *Nakṣatreṣṭi*, of either the before-mentioned libations to the *Kṛttikās*, etc., or of the *Nāriṣṭa-homas*; both sets of offerings are ‘combined’ and offered; and the reason for this *non-exclusion* lies in the fact that these offerings serve transcendental purposes and there can be no justification for abandoning either of them.

Meaning of the Negative Term

c33.s1.1

As ‘Exclusion’,—which is practically the same as ‘Prohibition’—is generally expressed by the Negative Term, *Jaimini* has discussed the signification of the Negative Term under Sū. 10.8.1. et. seq.

c33.s1.2

(1) In most cases, we find ‘Exclusion’ or ‘Prohibition’ relating to such details as are indicated as to be transferable to the Ectype from the Archetype, under the General Law relating to the Archetype and the Ectype;—and (2) in some cases it is found to relate to details that have been enjoined in a general way without reference to any particular Sacrifice.

c33.s1.3

(1) An instance of ‘Exclusion’ or ‘Prohibitiin’ of a Detail indicated as transferable to the Ectype from the Archetype, under the General Law,—we have the case of the *Appointment of the Priests*, this has been laid down in connection with the Archetype, and as such is transferable to the Ectype; but in regard to the Ectype it has been directly prohibited by a Vedic text;—this prohibition is regarded as modifying, in regard to the Ectype, the Archetypal Injunction and its indications to this extent that it is taken to mean that ‘at the Ectype one should employ all the details of the Archetype, with the *Exception* of the *Appointment of Priests*’. Thus in this case, the Prohibition signifies Exception. (Sū. 10.8. 1—4.)

c33.s1.4

(2) In a case where there are two mutually contradictory assertions in two Vedic texts themselves,—e.g., one text says ‘the *Ṣoḍashin* vessel should be *held* at the *Atirātra’*, and another to the effect that ‘the *Ṣoḍashin* vessel should not be *held* at the *Atirātra’*,

Cites (3)