Purva-Mimamsa in its Sources c35: Chapter XXX: ‘Tantra’ Centralisation
Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā in its Sources c35
- Language
- English
Chapter XXX: ‘Tantra’ Centralisation
c35.2
We have dealt with ‘Exclusion’ and ‘Inclusion’, of Details; these enable us to determine the extent and the scope of the Ectypal Sacrifice. This leads us to consider the means of determining the extent and scope of the entire Sacrifices—specially the composite ones—which consist of a Primary and a number of Subsidiary Sacrifices. This subject lends itself to a twofold division—(a) There are certain Subsidiaries which, if performed once, effectually help, by that single performance, more than one Act; this help accorded by a single performance of the Subsidiary to several Primaries has been called ‘Tantra’ (Centralisation, Collectivation);—(b) there are, on the other hand, some Subsidiaries which have to be repeated in connection with each Primary to which they are related; this repetition of the Subsidiary with each Primary has been called ‘Avāpa’ (De-centralisation, Distribution).
c35.3
As a preliminary to the consideration of this question of ‘Centralisation’ and ‘Decentralisation’, it is necessary to consider whether in the case of a composite Sacrificial performance, consisting of a number of minor Sacrifices, the specified result follows from all collectively or from each severally. There are similar questions that arise in regard to all composite Sacrifices. (*Bhāṣya*, Trs., pp. 2080-2081.)
c35.4
The Established Conclusion on this question is that the result follows from all the Sacrifices collectively.
c35.5
This is the case with the *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa* for instance, which is a composite Sacrifice, consisting of six Sacrifices—the *Agnēya* and the rest; and ‘Heaven’ has been declared to be the Result followng from them. The question is—Does this result proceed from all the six Sacrifices in common, collectively? Or from each of them severally?—The Established Conclusion on this question is that—these Sacrifices, though made up of several Acts, should be regarded as one Act (Composite)—because they are related to a single purpose and because they are called by a single name. (Sū. 11.1.1.) That is to say, though the Āgnēya and the other components of the Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa are distinct from each other, they should be regarded as ‘one act’, because they are all related to the same Result, collectively; and those Sacrifices which lead to the same single Result must be ‘one act’. That these acts are related to the Result collectively follows from the fact that they are called by a single name, which name signifies all the component acts collectively, and it is through this name that the text has connected the Acts with the particular Result. (Bhāṣya, Trs., pp. 2082-2083.)
c35.6
The use of this discussion lies in the fact that, if the Result followed from all the component Sacrifices collectively, then the Subsidiary Details should have to be performed only once,—not with each of the component Sacrifices; whereas if the Result followed from each of the component Sacrifices severally, then the Subsidiary details should have to be performtd with each one of these components. Thus then, in the former case, there would be Tantra, ‘Centralisation’, and in the latter case Avāpa, ‘Decentralisation’.
c35.7
The same question arises in regard to the Subsidiaries also:— Do all the prescribed Subsidiaries help their Primary collectively? Or does each Subsidiary accord its help independently of the rest? The Established Conclusion here also is that it is collectively that the Subsidiaries help the Primary; so that here also we have Tantra, ‘Centralisation’ (Sū. 11.1. 5—19).
c35.8
A typical instance is provided by the Prayājas which are Subsidiary to the Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa; and the conclusion is that these Prayājas have to be performed only once, and thereby they help the whole of the composite Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa. (Sū. 11.1. 29—37.)
c35.9
Another general question dealt with in this connection is in regard to the Prospective Sacrifices, i.e., Sacrifices performed with a view to a definite result. Should these be performed only once? Or should they be repeated? The Established Conclusion on this question is that such Sacrifices may be repeated as often as one may have the desire for the particular result. (Sū. 11.1. 20—25.) In the case of acts with visible results, they have to be repeated as often as it may be necessary for the obtaining of that result; e.g., the *Threshing* of the Corn has to be repeated until the removal of the chaff has been accomplished. (Sū. 11.1.27.) But these same acts, if performed with a view to unseen results, should be performed only once. (Sū. 11.1.28.)
c35.10
The following are some other typical instances of *Tantra*. (a) Bearing upon the *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa* Sacrifice, we have a number of Injunctions laying down details in connection with them such as ‘the *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa* should be performed upon level ground’, ‘the *Pūrṇamāsa* should be performed on the Full-Moon day’, ‘there should be four Priests at it’, and so forth. From these Injunctions it would seem that the entire *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa* should be performed on level ground, on the Full-Moon day and so forth,—the whole Sacrifice being repeated at each place and time mentioned. But the *Established Conclusion* on this point is that the entire *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa* is to be performed once only, and that this one performance should be done at the place and time laid down in the text; and the reason for this lies in the fact that the numerous acts composing the *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa* are to bring about their Result collectively, as combining to make up the single performance of the Sacrifice as a whole. (Sū. 11.2. 1-2.) (b) All the *Subsidiary Sacrifices* entering into a *Primary Sacrifice* should similarly be performed only once at the same time and place as that *Primary*. (Sū. 11.2. 3—10.) (c) A third instance of *Tantra* is provided by the *Agnyādhāna*, Fire-Installation,—which is done only once in life and is used at the subsequent Sacrifices. (Sū. 11.3.2.)
c35.11
This same *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa* supplies an instance of *Āvāpa*, ‘Decentralisation’, also:—This Sacrifice consists of two sets of Sacrifices—one called ‘*Darsha*’ and the other ‘*Pūrṇamāsa*’; though the Subsidiaries prescribed for each set are nearly the same, yet they have to be repeated with each of the two sets; and the reason for this lies in the fact that, though the two sets together make up a single Sacrifice, leading to a single Result,—yet, in asmuch as the two sets are performed on two different days—fifteen days apart—the Subsidiaries performed with one set would be performed on the day on which that set is performed; and thus they would not be performed on the day prescribed for the second set, which latter would, therefore, be left incomplete, bereft of the prescribed Subsidiaries. In such cases therefore, the Subsidiaries have to be repeated. (Sū. 11.2. 11—17.)
c35.12
There are however certain Subsidiaries which, by their very nature,—and also by virtue of Direct Injunctions,—cannot be performed on the same day as their Primary; for instance, the *Erecting of the Altar* has been enjoined as to be done on the day preceding the performance of the *Darsha*; and hence this Erection cannot be done on the same day as the *Darsha* Sacrifice itself. (Sū. 11.3.1.)
c35.13
CHAPTER XXXI
Linked texts (1)
- Mīmāṃsāsūtra — Jaimini, Sanskrit