Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Purva-Mimamsa in its Sources c36: Chapter XXXI. (A) ‘Prasaṅga’—Extended Application

Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā in its Sources c36

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XXXI. (A) ‘Prasaṅga’—Extended Application

c36.1

‘*Tantra*’ has been defined as consisting in the single performance of a Subsidary benefiting more than one Primary,—that single performance being enjoined and intended by the Sacrificer to help more than one Primary Act. In certain cases, the scope of this ‘*tantra*’ is further extended, and the single performance of a Subsidiary,—even though prescribed and intended to help *one* Primary,—is accepted as helping another Primary also, when this latter is performed by the same man and at the same time and place as the former Primary. This is called ‘*Prasaṅga*’, Extended Application. For instance, in connection with the *Agniṣomīya* Animal-Sacrifice, there is an offering of Meat-Cake, laid down in the text,—‘Having offered the omentum of the animal sacrificed to Agni-Soma, one should offer the Meat-cake, dedicated to Agni-Soma’. The question in regard to this is—Should the Subsidiaries—i.e., the *Prayājas*—which have been prescribed for the *Agniṣomīya* Sacrifice, be performed separately for the Meat-cake Offering? Or is this Meat-cake offering to be regarded as having received the requisite help from those Subsidiaries as performed in connection with the *Agniṣomīya* Animal-Sacrifice,—and there is no need for a separate performance of these? The *Established Conclusion* on this question is that the Meat-cake-offering is accomplished through the Subsidiaries performed during the Procedure of the Animal-Sacrifice; because it has been enjoined in the middle of the Process. (Sū. 12.1.3.) That is, as a matter of fact, the Cake-offering has been laid down in the middle of the Procedure of the Anmal-Sacrifice; by virtue of which the help rendered by the Subsidiaries operates both ways—i.e., it helps the Animal-Sacrifice as well as the Cake-offering; the Subsidiaries performed in connection with the Animal-Sacrifice are in proximity to the Cake-offering also; and by virtue of this proximity, they render help to this latter offering also; like the lamp lighted in the house illumining the road also. (*Bhāṣya*, Trs., p. 2255.) Even though we have no such Injunction as that ‘What is done for the Animal-Sacrifice helps the Cake-offering also’, yet the circumstances brought into existence by the performance of the Subsidiaries with the intention of helping one act, could not cease to exist and withdraw their help from another Act also, which latter might happen to be performed at that same time and place and by the same Performer. (Sū. 12.1. 1—6.)

c36.2

Similarly, when one has erected the Sacrificial Altar in connection with the *Agniṣṭoma*-Sacrifice,—if he wishes to perform an *Iṣṭi* also, after that *Agniṣṭoma*, he need not erect another Altar for the latter; the same Altar can serve for both Sacrifices. (Sū. 12.2. 8-9.)

c36.3

There are certain exceptions to this also. For instance, the *Ārambhaṇīyā Iṣṭi* has been enjoined as to be performed at the commencement of the first *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa* that one undertakes to perform,—as shown under 9.1. 34-35; though this *Iṣṭi* is meant to be only purificatory or preparatory in character,—tending to purify the Sacrificer and prepare him for the Sacrifice,—yet, in asmuch as a single performance helps *all* the Sacrifices performed by the man in course of the *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa*, it has to be repeated along with each of the Ectypes that the man performs; and the reason for this lies in the fact that the qualification ‘life-long’ does not pertain to the Primary Sacrifice, but to the performer of each Sacrifice (as shown under 2.4.1), and hence there is no ‘Extended Application’ of the *Ārambhaṇīyā Iṣṭi* in this case (12.2. 19—21).

(B) ‘Vikalpa’ Option

c36.s1.1

We now proceed to consider the subject of ‘Option’, *Vikalpa*, which may be regarded as an anithesis to *Sammuchchaya*, ‘Combination’ or ‘Inclusion’, dealt with by the *Sūtra* under Discourse 9. (See above). In cases of ‘Inclusion’, there is performance of several Subsidiaries together, while in cases of ‘Option’, only one of the several possible Subsidiaries can be performed; and the choice in the matter lies with the Sacrificer.

c36.s1.2

Before taking up the particular instances of *Option*, a few general observations on the subject appear to be called for. As a rule, *Option* is not permissible except under strict necessity; because its acceptance gives rise to *eight* undesirable contingencies. For instance, there is the typical instance of *Option* between *Yava* and *Vrīhi*, both of which are optional alternatives;—accepting this option, (1) if we use *Vrīhi*, and not use *Yava*, we reject the authority of the Vedic text enjoining the use of *Yava*,—(2) we assume the untrustworthy character of this text,—(3) if, on the other hand, we use *Yava*, and not use *Vrīhi*, we reject the authority of the text prescribing *Vrīhi*, and (4) assume the untrustworthy character of this text; (5) in this latter case again, we accept the authority of the *Yava-text* which we had rejected before, (6) we thereby reject the previously-assumed untrustworthiness of the *Yava-text*; (7) in using the *Vrīhi* again, we accept the authority of the *Vrīhi-text* we had rejected before, and (8) we also reject the previously-assumed untrustworthiness of that text.

c36.s1.3

It may be noted that these objections apply only to the case of those options which are *not-restricted*, that is, those where the choice is left to the will of the Agent; it does not apply to those cases where the option is restricted, *vyavasthita*. ऐच्छिकेडष्टविधो दोषः —says *Devanātha Ṭhakkura* in his *Adhikaraṇakaumudī* (p. 1).

c36.s1.4

Options have been grouped primarily under *three* heads: (*Vide Mīmāṃsābālaprakāśa*, p. 152—65) (A) Indicated by Reason, (B) Indicated by Direct Declaration, (C) Dependent upon the wish of the Agent.

c36.s1.5

(A) Of *Option* indicated by *Reason*, there are eight sub-divisions:—(1) Option between two 'kinds', *e.g.*, between the kind of corn, called '*Vrīhi*' and that called '*Yava*'—(2) between two particular individual things, *e.g.*, at the *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa*, for the *Agniṣomīya-offering*, the Cake offered may be the one baked either on eleven or twelve pans, as laid down in the texts of two different Vedic Rescensions (*Vide* 2. 4. 8—32);—(2) between two Qualities; *e.g.*, between the *Black* and the *Red* colours of the Goat for the *Agniṣomīya-offering*: (4) between two Acts; *e.g.*, at the *Jyotiṣṭoma*, when the Priests go out of the *Havirdhāna*, forming themselves into a line, if the line happens to be broken by one Priest, one set of Expiatory Rites is to be performed,—if by another Priest, then another set,—if both should happen to break the line simultaneously, then there is *Option* between the two sets of Expiatory Rites, (See Sū. 6. 5. 51—53);—(5) Between the using of one kind of things and the total abandoning of it; *e.g.*, for the *Vājasaneyins*, it has been laid down that they may or may not recite the *Nakṣatra-Mantra*; so that the Recitation of the kind of *Mantra* called '*Nakṣatra-Mantra*' may be done or may be entirely omittted;

c36.s1.6

—(6) Between the *using* and *abandoning* of a particular *Individual* thing; *e.g.*, the particular Mantra called ‘*Sambhara*’ may be recited or entirely omitted; (7) Between the *adopting* and *abandoning* of a *Quality*; *e.g.*, for the Altar of the *Darsha-Sacrifice*, a particular size has been prescribed,—and at the same time there is a declaration to the effect that ‘there need be no exact measurement for the Altar’; hence the specially-prescribed *Size* may or may not be adopted; (8) Between the *performing* and *abandoning* of an *Act*; *e.g.*, the *Holding* of the *Sodashin* vessel at the *Atiratra* may or may not be done.

c36.s1.7

All these eight kinds of Option again may be either *Kratvartha*,—helping the fulfilment of the Sacrifice—or *Purusartha*, accomplishing something desirable for the Agent. All the instances cited above belong to the former class; *i.e.*, they are all *Kratvartha* Options. At the *Darsha-Purnamasa Sacrifice*, the water is fetched in a vessel which has a handle four inches long and a cavity eight inches deep and about nine inches in diameter; if the Sacrificer is desirous of securing *Brahmic-Glory*, the vessel should, according to one text, be made of *Wood*, while, according to another text, of *Bell-metal*; and this gives rise to option. There are *Eleven* kinds of this *Purusartha* option.

c36.s1.8

All these nineteen options are *Indicated by Reason*.

c36.s1.9

(B) Of Option *Indicated by Direct Declaration* also there are nineteen kinds. As an example of one of these, we have the Option indicated by the Vedic text—‘One who desires to Sacrifice with *corns*, or *with animals*, or *Soma* should perform the Sacrifice on the *Moonless day* or on the *Full-Moon day*’; where we have the option regarding the material substances, as also regarding time. In *Smrti* also we have the text to the effect that ‘the *Pitrs* remain satisfied for a month, with offerings of *Sesamum* or *Barley*’; where we have an option between the two substances Sesamum and Barley.

c36.s1.10

(C) Of the third kind of Option—that *dependent on the wish of the Agent*,—also, there are nineteen kinds. As an example of this, we have the followig:—In connection with the *Ashvamedha*, it has been laid down that ‘A *Brahmana* is to be sacrificed to *Brahma*’; the *Brahmana*—thus Sacrificed may be one belonging to the *Kaundinya* or to any other *Gotra*; this depends entirely on the wish of the Sacrificer.

c36.s1.11

There is another division of Options into two classes—(a) *Vyavasthita*, ‘Restricted’,—where, among the alternatives, there is a limit or restriction, and (b) *Avyavasthita*, ‘Unrestricted’,—where there is no such restriction or limit. Each of these again is *Indicated by Reason* or *Indicated by Direct Declaration*. Examples of this latter class—*i.e.*, Restricted Option Indicated by Direct Declaration, we have in the cases already cited. As an example of the *Restricted Option Indicated by Reason*, we have one from the *Smṛtis*, discussed by Kumārila (in the *Smṛti-pāda* of the *Tantravārttika*); it has been laid down that—‘The Brāhmaṇa should devote *twelve years* of his life to the study of each of the Vedas,—or as many years as may be necessary’:—on the face of it, this appears to indicate an *unrestricted* Option, to be determined entirely by the wish of the Student whether he will complete the entire course of the study of the four Vedas in 48 years or in 4 only; but by means of Reasoning, it has been shown by Kumārila that here we have the Option of the *Restricted* kind,—the meaning of the text being that ‘if the Student is not going to take to the life of the householder, he should devote 48 years to Vedic study,—if however he is going to enter that life, then he should devote only 5 years to each Veda and complete the course in 20 years; but in case he is not able, under his peculiar circumstances, to devote more than 2 or 3 years to each Veda, he should adopt this last course, and so on. (See *Tantravārttika*, p. 112.)

c36.s1.12

The *Restriction of Options indicated by Direct Declaration* is of *seven* kinds:—(1) *Restriction regarding Place*; *e.g.*, the Consecration of Fire having been laid down as to be performed during Spring, the question arises as to which of the two methods of counting the seasons is to be adopted; Seasons are as a rule calculated by the ‘lunar’ month, and the ‘lunar’ month has been taken by some people to begin with the Moonless Day, and by others, with the Full-Moon day. The idea derived from all this would be that there is no restriction regarding the calculating of the month, and hence of the Seasons; but the requisite Restriction is provided by another text in the *Trikāṇḍamaṇḍana*, which asserts that—‘The system of the counting of the month as commencing with the Dark Fortnight is not accepted in countries lying to the South of the Vindhya Hills’; so here we have the Option restricted to Place. (2) *Restriction in regard to Time*; *e.g.*, in regard to the reciting of the *Vārtraghni* and the *Vṛdhanvatī* • Mantras at the *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa*, there being an uncertainty as to which of the two sets is to be recited on the *Moonless* and which on the *Full-Moon* day, we have the restrictive rule to the effect that the *Vārtraghni* are to be recited on the *Full-Moon* day and the *Vṛdhanvatī* on the *Moonless day*; so here the Option becomes restricted in regard to Time.—(3) Then there is restriction in regard to the Agent also; *e.g.*, at the *Darsha-Pūrṇamāsa*, a Mantra is to be recited by the sacrificer, and in this connection three Mantras have been mentioned (1) ‘*Agnē vratapatē*’, (2) ‘*Vāyo vratapatē*’ and (3) ‘*Aditya vratapatē*’;—from which it would seem as if any Sacrificer may recite any one of these three *Mantras*; but there is the distinct rule to the effect that—‘The first of the three Mantras is to be recited by the *Brāhmaṇa*, the second by the *Kṣattriya* and the third by the *Vaishya*, Sacrificer’.—(4) There is Restriction also in regard to Action itself; *e.g.*, in connection with the *Varuṇapraghāsa-Sacrifice*, two *Vihāras* (Place for keeping the offering-materials) have been prescribed, one to the North and another to the South;—and the impression being that any one of the performers might deposit anything on any one of the *Vihāras*, the Option becomes *restricted* by the further rule that ‘the *Adhvaryu*-priest is to keep eight of the articles on the Northern one and the *Pratiprasthātṛ*-priest is to keep the *Mārūtī* on the Southern One’. (5) There is Restriction also with regard to the *Result*; *e.g.*, with regard to the several Optional *Nidhanas* (additional syllables added to the text of the *Sāman*, by the exigencies of the music) to be adopted at the *Jyotiṣṭoma-Sacrifice*, there is a rule laying down that—‘When the Sacrificer desires rain, the *Nidhana* to be used is *Hiṣ*,—when he desires food, it is to be *Ūrg*,—and when he desires *Heaven*, it is to be *Ū’*; hence we have Restriction of the Option through the *Result*.—(6) There is Restriction also in regard to the *Occasion* or *Contingent Circumstances*; *e.g.*, there is the rule—‘In the case of the death of a *Sapiṇḍa* the period of impurity is to be *ten days*,—or till after the day of *Bone-picking*, or *three days*,—or *one day*’:—here we have a number of Options which would be very confusing; but the wide Option has been restricted by another rule, which says—‘When the dead *Sapiṇḍa* is one whose *Upanayana* had been performed, the period shall be *ten days*; if his *Tonsure* had been performed, and *not* the *Upanayana*,—then only *four days* . . . *one day* being the period in the case of the dead child having only just cut its teeth’.—

c36.s1.13

Lastly, there is the *Conditional Restriction*; e.g., *Yava* and *Vrīhi* are both enjoined as approved alternative grains to be used as offering materials; and this option has been restricted conditionally, by the rule that ‘if one has commenced the performance with *Vrīhi*, he should proceed with the *same* to the end of the performance.’

c36.s1.14

In regard to *Option*, the following facts are noteworthy:—

c36.s1.15

In several cases, where there may appear to be Option, there is no real *option* at all ;e.g., in cases where several details have been laid down with regard to the same act,—each of these details being intended for a distinct purpose; in such cases every one of the details has to be adopted. (Sū. 12.3.9.) But in cases where the details are for the same purpose, there is Option. (12.3. 10—14.) Similarly in regard to the several Expiatory Rites, if these are all prescribed in connection with the same delinquency, then there is to be Option (12. 3—15); but there is to be no Option when they are prescribed in connection with different delinquencies, in which latter case, all have to be performed. So with *Mantras*, it is only when several have been prescribed for the same purpose that we have Option, (12.3.28). But when, of such *Mantras*, one is found to be indicative of mere *Recitation*, another of *Praise*, and another of *Invocation of Blessings*,—every one of these has to be recited (12.4. 1-2). With regard to *Gifts*—where several numbers, 6, 12, etc., are prescribed, there is to be Option. (Sū. 12.4.9.)

c36.s1.16

CHAPTER XXXII

c36.s1.17

ACTS—SACRIFICES

c36.s1.18

The Rules of Interpretation evolved in the *Mīmāmsā-Sūtra*, are of universal application,—useful wherever texts have to be interpreted. But they have suffered from the fact that the Commentators on the *Sūtras*, from the earliest times it seems, chose for their illustrations the texts bearing upon Sacrifices; the reasons for this are obvious. Hinduism is a religion of ‘Sacrifices’ in the highest sense of the term; as ordinarily understood however, the term has been understood to stand for the Sacrifices offered on the physical plane, represented by the offerings of material substances to ‘Deities’. During the time the Commentators known to us lived, these Sacrifices formed the most important factor in the life of the Hindu. Naturally therefore the performance of these appeared to them to be the most familiar instances with which to illustrate the rules of interpretation. Circumstances have entirely changed, and ‘Sacrifices’ are now known merely by name; so that the illustrative examples have become all but unintelligible. A clear study of Sanskrit Literature will however reveal the fact that the rules have been drawn upon to elucidate knotty points in other branches of study and investigation also,—notably so in the domain of legal studies; and naturally so, because the ‘Law’ of the Hindus is based, directly or indirectly, on Scriptural texts (see above); and the interpretation of these texts had to be done through the Rules of Interpretation evolved in the *Mīmāmsā-Sūtra*. We shall see later on how effectively these Rules have been utilised in the Literature of Hindu Law, as also in other branches of Literature. (See below.)

c36.s1.19

In the meantime however, in order to make intelligible the discussions and arguments carried on by the *Mīmāmsaka* in the earlier chapters of this work, it is necessary to provide a short account of these Sacrifices.

c36.s1.20

As we have seen above, the subject-matter of *Mīmāmsā* is *‘Dharma’*, and this term stands for *what the man should do*; but in common usage the term includes such acts as *Yāga* (Sacrifice proper), *Homa* (Pouring of Libations), *Dāna* (Making Gifts), Snāna (Bathing), Dhyāna (Meditation), Japa (Repeating Mantras) and so forth; but the principal forms of Dharma that form the subject-matter of Mīmāṁsā-Śāstra are Yāga, Dāna and Homa. The Bhāṣya says—‘The Primary act is in the form of Yāga (Sacrificing), Dāna (Giving), and Homa (Pouring into a receptacle)’—(Trs., p. 784). Every one of these acts consists in the offering of a certain thing to some one else; and the ‘offering’ common to all these has been defined as ‘the setting aside of one’s own ownership over the thing offered and the bringing about of the ownership of another person (the recipient of the gift)’—(Bhāṣya, Trs., p. 785). (a) This offering becomes a Yāga, Sacrifice, when ‘it brings about the connection between a substance and a Deity’—says the Sūtra (4.2.27). In this case, there is a simple offering to the Deity;—(b) Homa also is the same, with the further element of ‘Pouring’; so that Homa is an act of offering a substance by pouring it into a receptacle. (Bhā. Trs., p. 785).

c36.s1.21

The Ṭuṭīkā remarks that the Bhāṣya has used the word ‘āsechana’, ‘Pouring’, because this element is present in most Homas, where the substance generally used is Clarified Butter or some such liquid substance; as a matter of fact however, there are several Homas at which Sesamum and other grains are offered; so that what differentiates the Homa from the Yāga is this, that in the Homa the substance is thrown into some suitable receptacle, as remarked by Tantraratna and Prakaraṇapañchikā (P. 105). It is not necessary that this ‘receptacle’ of the offering should be Fire in order to make it ‘Homa’, as has been asserted in the Bhaṭṭabhāskara, because in many Homas, the Substance is put into Water; e.g., at the Ārabhṛtha-Iṣṭi performed on the completion of the Agniṣṭoma.

c36.s1.22

(c) In Dāna, ‘Gift’, there is offering of the Substance followed by the actual bringing about of the ownership of the Recipient. (Bhā. Trs. p. 785). The difference among Yāga, Homa and Dāna is as follows:—The relinquishment of one’s own ownership over the offered substance is the factor common to all three; but in Yāga, the relinquishment of one’s ownership is merely verbal, the substance offered not being actually taken away by the Recipient (Deity); in Dāna, what is offered is actually taken away by the Recipient; and in Homa what is offered is thrown into some suitable receptacle, Fire or Water.

Cites (5)