Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Karma-Mimamsa c8: V. The Rules of Ritual Interpretation

The Karma-Mīmāṃsā c8

Language
English

V. The Rules of Ritual Interpretation

c8.1

WE have seen that Prabhākara and Kumārila establish by their elaborate epistemological and metaphysical enquiries precisely the same results as were more simply accepted by Jaimini, the fact that duty or righteousness is inculcated by the Veda in the form of injunctions, which are to be carried out on the strength of the authority of that text as uncreated and eternal. The task of Jaimini, in all save the first Pāda of Adhyāya I, is, therefore, to lay down the principles which will enable men rightly to perform the actions which the Veda enjoins, but which the vast extent of the Vedic literature renders it difficult to determine. The task falls essentially under two great heads; it is necessary to determine precisely to what texts and in what degree authority attaches, and it is requisite to classify systematically the various forms of injunction with reference to the actions which they enjoin. Both duties are performed, though occasionally in somewhat haphazard manner, in the Sūtra; the more important one, the investigation of injunction, forms the main topic of many later works, while the compendia usually cover more or less adequately the whole field. The details of the discussions have necessarily little general value; they deal with incidents of sacrifices, which flourished only in the early days of the history of the Mīmāṃsā, and in many cases the labour devoted to their investigation cannot but seem to us mis-spent. On the other hand, the principles of interpretation developed are often both valuable and interesting as examples of logical analysis.

c8.2

Of the Vedic texts the Brāhmaṇas afford the immediate material for the extraction of the injunctions which are the essential part of the Veda, but they contain also passages which cannot be treated as dealing with either positive or negative injunctions, and are classed either as explanatory matter, Arthavāda, or name, Nāmadheya. The Arthavāda (I, 2, 1-30) at first sight seems not to be entitled to authority, but Kumārila and Prabhākara alike defend its validity, the latter against the charge that such sentences are inexpressive, since they are not construed with injunctive verbal forms. The value of the Arthavāda, both hold, lies in it either extolling desirable, or censuring forbidden, acts; it thus comes into immediate connection with injunction or prohibition. Hence it follows that, in cases where it might be possible to extract from an Arthavāda an injunction, it is needless to do so, the passage being adequately explained if it remains eulogistic of some action already enjoined. Arthavādas may be variously divided, but the simplest division is into three classes: the first is where in contradiction of some other means of proof a quality is asserted to exist, as in "The post is the sun," which serves to extol the brilliance of the post. Or it may merely reiterate a truth known otherwise, as in "Agni is a protection from the cold." Or it merely may refer to something which has happened, neither contradicted by other means of proof nor already known.

c8.3

The case of name (I, 4, 1-16) is far more obscure; discussions regarding it usually turn on one or other of the sentences *udbhidā yajeta paśukāmaḥ*, "he who desires cattle should sacrifice with the *udbhid*"; *citrayā yajeta paśukāmaḥ*, "with the *citrā*"; *agnihotram juhoti*, "he offers the Agnihotra"; and *śyenenābhicaran yajeta*, "he who practices witchcraft should offer the *śyena* sacrifice." It seems at least plausible to suppose that the subdivision owes its creation to the practical necessity of dealing with a limited number of obscure sacrificial terms, but was later extended into a wider area. In the developed theory,¹ the justification of the classification of name is given as follows. Each word in the injunction must be brought into effective relation to the energy in the agent excited by the injunction. The energy requires a result to be achieved, an instrument wherewith to achieve it, and an indication of the procedure to be followed. The last requisite is furnished by various subsidiary injunctions, the instrument and the object are given by the verb yajeta and the qualification paśukāmaḥ, which may be reduced to yāgena paśum bhāvayet, “he should effect or realise cattle by the use of the sacrifice.” It remains to dispose of udbhidā, and, various other suggestions as to how it should be taken (e.g. as denoting a spade) being rejected, the conclusion is arrived at that it merely serves to limit the idea expressed by yāgena, is only a name, and thus deserves a separate place in the classification of texts.

c8.4

¹ Thibaut, *Arthasaṁgraha*, pp. xii, xiii ; *Mīmāṁsānyāyaprakāśa*, pp. 85 ff.

c8.5

Distinct from the Brāhmaṇa is the Mantra (I, 2, 31-53) of which no effective definition is attempted in the texts.¹ The Mantras are divided into the Ṛc, Sāman and Yajus, according as they are recited, sung, or muttered, usually in a low tone, though some of the Yajus Mantras, the Nigaḍas, are said out aloud; the Yajus is usually held to be unmetrical, though with small accuracy. Mantras do not lay down injunctions, but in the main they serve to denote something of value in connection with injunctions, especially the deity to whom offering is to be made. The tendency to find this characteristic is much overdone in the Mīmāṃsā, though even it is compelled to recognise now and then that a Mantra must be regarded as merely of a eulogistic character, or even that it is destined to have some supernatural fruit. The Mīmāṃsā position is, of course, an inevitable result of eliminating the goodwill of the deity as a real factor in the sacrifice; the hymns with which their authors intended to confer pleasure on the gods become a somewhat cumbrous, and not altogether useful, part of the sacrificial apparatus.

c8.6

¹ Mīmāṃsābālaprakāśa, pp. 58-70; Mīmāṃsāparibhāṣā, p. 40.

c8.7

Apropos of the Mantras of the Yajus type, however, the Mīmāṃsā develops some sensible rules of construction (II, 1, 46-49), rendered necessary by the fact that, while the metre in the case of the Ṛc and the song in the case of the Sāman determined the extent of the Mantra, the Yajus Mantras were recorded in long paragraphs, with no obvious mechanical dividing marks. These principles are that of syntactical unity (*ekavākyatā*); those words must be taken together which, when so united, form a single idea, or, as Prabhākara puts it, to suit his theory of injunction, express a single purpose, and which, taken apart, are not expressive of any idea or purpose. Secondly, there is admitted the principle of syntactical split (*vākyabheda*), which permits us to break up what else might be taken as a single sentence into parts, each of which must contain a single idea. But this expedient is permissible only when there is a clear Vedic injunction to make the split, or when no other construction is really possible, for otherwise the error is committed of multiplying Apūrvas resulting from Mantras. None the less it is a necessary procedure in cases where it is made clear in any way that there are distinct acts to be accompanied by Mantras; "Pleasant I make this seat for thee; sit upon it" (T.B. III, 7, 5, 2) would *primâ facie* be one Mantra, but, as it is intended to serve the double purpose of accompanying the act of making the seat for the cake, and setting it down, it must be taken as two. Thirdly, there is the principle of extension (*anuṣaṅga*), which denotes that it is often necessary in the case of Mantras to supply with several sets of words a clause which follows the last of these sets only, and which might thus be deemed to belong to it alone.

c8.8

Authority, however, is not confined to the Vedic Saṁhitās and the Brāhmaṇas. It is extended to the Smṛtis, in which term Kumārila¹ includes primarily the Itihāsas, Purāṇas, and the Smṛti of Manu, these being works which claim universal application. The Itihāsas and Purāṇas he deems to contain injunctions based on Vedic authority and much Arthavāda, but he admits that there are also injunctions arising from mere worldly considerations, passages useful only to give pleasure, and other extraneous matter; the hymns to deities serve to secure a transcendental result. They serve as wholes the useful purpose of instructing men of very various capacity and knowledge. In the case of the Smṛtis proper only five alternatives are available: either they are completely erroneous, which is impossible, as these works are obviously useful and men are not so foolish as to believe nonsense; or they are due to personal observation, which cannot be accepted; or they rest on tradition, which would give no assurance of validity; or they are deliberately intended to deceive, which is incredible for lack of motive and probability of success; or, finally, they represent lost Vedic tradition. For this decision there can be adduced a certain corroboration in the fact that for certain statements in Smṛtis we can find confirmation in Vedic texts, whence we can assume that other statements were also derived from texts, now unhappily lost to us. Thus part of the Smṛtis is derived from the Veda, part from ordinary motives of life, and the story material is Arthavāda, as in the Itihāsas and Purāṇas. The view of Prabhākara¹ is not essentially different; he also accepts the inference of Vedic authority, but expressly negates it in the case of Smṛtis which do not prescribe or prohibit any course of action, for example, statements that plants have souls, which contradicts his own denial of vegetable bodies. Both schools again agree (I, 3, 15, 16) in accepting as valid the Smṛtis of such authors as Gautama, Vasiṣṭha, Baudhāyana, Āpastamba, Śaṅkha and Hārīta, despite the occurrence in them of passages laying down certain customs as practised by persons in the east, and so on, a fact which apparently contradicts the universality of the Vedic injunction. The decision of the schools is that their injunctions are truly universal, and even the Veda lays down certain practices as to be performed by certain classes only, for instance, the Rājasūya is a sacrifice for kings only.

c8.9

¹ Tantravārttika, trans. pp. 25, 112 ff, 244. The Sūtra (I, 3, 1-7, 11-14) never mentions the word Smṛti and the commentators differ widely in their versions.

c8.10

¹ Prakaraṇapañcikā, pp. 100, 101, 150.

c8.11

The Vedāṅgas, or subsidiary treatises bearing on Vedic pronounciation, ritual, grammar, etymology and astronomy, are also admitted to rest in part on Vedic tradition, and the Mīmāṃsā and philosophic treatises generally are permitted to share in Vedic authority; thus Kumārila² assures us that the Buddhist denial of the external world was not really meant to be taken as a serious contradiction of its reality, but to divert men’s minds from undue attention to it, and so with other apparently erroneous tenets. In the case of the ritual Sūtras the claim is made by some that they must be treated as true Veda themselves, but this is denied, for they have human authors, and are merely, like Smṛtis, based on Vedic authority. In the case of grammar, however, a really interesting discussion is raised on the Sūtra (I, 3, 4-30) by those who deny that it can be made out to rest on Vedic authority, and who go so far as to challenge the validity of the claims of the grammarians to be authoritative.

c8.12

² Ślokavārttika, p. 267 (v. 201).

c8.13

The argument of these unorthodox persons runs: words like gāvī, in lieu of the grammarians’ gauḥ, for cow are perfectly correct; they are fully expressive, they are perceptible by the ear, they are as eternal as any word is, and no beginning in time for them can be traced. The science of grammar, too, has no Vedic connection; it differs in no way from the process of explaining vernacular words for everyday use; it does not deal with actions which are the sole business of the Veda; it serves no useful purposes in relation to duty, as we do not need grammar to tell us the meanings of words; nor is grammar the source of usage, since, on the contrary, it rests upon and follows usage. The reply of the Mīmāṃsā is not convincing; it maintains that synonyms are not permissible, unless enjoined by Vedic use; as gauḥ expresses exactly the meaning “cow,” any variant of it is wrong and undesirable, and has such power of denotation as it may actually possess, merely because of its similarity to gauḥ and not in its own right. The science of grammar also is essential to set out in orderly derivation the vast masses of words in the Vedas; moreover, not usage alone, but usage and grammar determine whether a word has the correct form to convey the meaning, and grammar in the last issue is more authoritative than mere usage. That correct words produce, when used, a transcendental result is proved by the fact that the Veda enjoins their use, and forbids the use of barbarous expressions; moreover, truth leads to supreme bliss, and the use of correct words is truth in speech. Fortunately this disquisition does not prevent either Prabhā- kara or Kumārila (I, 3, 10) from agreeing that, when the Veda uses a barbarous word, it is to be interpreted in the sense barbarian usage accords to it, in lieu of attempting to foist upon it an etymological sense.¹

c8.14

¹ Kumārila enlivens the discussion by giving a long list of errors in grammar committed even by grammarians, and similarly diversifies (I, 3, 7) his exposition of the practice of the good by an account of crimes attributed to gods and sages. On grammar, cf. Nyāyamañjarī, pp. 412-26.

c8.15

The relation of Smṛti authority to the Veda, in cases where there appears to be conflict, is the subject of divergence of opinion between Prabhākara and Kumārila. In the view of the former, which is apparently that of the Mīmāṃsā Sūtra (I, 3, 3-4), if a Smṛti contradicts a Vedic passage, the former loses all authority, while, even in the case of Smṛti passages which do not thus offend, it may be impossible to accord their injunctions any spiritual value, if they seem to be due to the avarice of the priests, as when the giving of the cloth from the sacrificial post to a priest is enjoined by Smṛti authority. Kumārila, however, with his greater regard for tradition, reduces, as far as possible, cases of contradiction to mere instances where alternatives are permissible, and only holds that the Sūtra recommends in the case of such alternatives the adoption of that which has direct, and not merely inferred, Vedic authority.

c8.16

Below the Smṛtis in value comes the practice of good men (I, 3, 8-9) or custom (I, 3, 15-23) on the simple ground that, while both must go back to Vedic authority to be valid, the former goes more directly to the fountainhead. In addition, however, to Smṛti and practise must be reckoned as sources of knowledge of duty the implications contained in Vedic texts, which may be deduced by us from them, even if not already set out in Smṛtis or by tradition.

c8.17

The essential function of all these sources is to give us knowledge of injunctions (vidhi), and injunctions are encitements to actions. Actions may be classified in various ways; there is a clear distinction between Vedic and worldly actions, with the former alone is the Mīmāṃsā concerned. Actions of this type may be classed as positive, as negative (pratiṣedha), or as partaking of both characters (paryudāsa), as in the case of a vow not to look at the sun taken by a student. Of actions¹ the sacrificial are the most important, falling under the three main classes of Yāga, the offering to a deity of a substance; Homa, the offering of a substance in fire or water; and Dāna, the waiver of one’s ownership of an object in favour of a third party. Sacrifices, again, can be divided according as they serve as archetypes only, like the Agnihotra, or as derivatives (*vikṛti*), like the Māsāgnihotra, or as both, like the victim for Agni and Soma, based on the new and full moon sacrifice and itself a model for the offering at the Soma pressing; or as neither, like the Darvihoma, for special reasons given in the Sūtra. More important is the division by purpose; the Nitya sacrifices must constantly be performed at the due seasons; the Naimittika must be performed on certain special occasions, as the Jyotis offering on the approach of spring, while the Kāmya offerings are optional, being undertaken by a man who desires some special end, as in the case of the Kārīriṣṭi performed to obtain rain.

c8.18

¹ Mīmāmsābālaprakāśa, pp. 81 ff; Mīmāmsāparibhāṣā, pp. 17 ff.

c8.19

The direction to perform an offering is laid down in an originating injunction (*utpattividhi*) or an injunction of application (*viniyogavidhi*), according as the matter concerned is a principal or a subordinate offering. In either case, it is frequently necessary to ascertain precisely how many actions are prescribed, and six rules for this purpose are laid down by the Mīmāmsā (II, 2 and 3). Difference in words is one clear indication, especially in the case of the verb, which is the most important part of a sentence of injunction; the repetition of the verb indicates distinct offerings; the mention of a definite number of oblations is clear evidence; other sources are the difference of names, of materials to be used, and of context. In the case of the last item it is agreed that the occurrence of the same offering in two different recensions of one text, as in the case of the Kāṇva and Mādhyamdina texts of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, does not constitute a diversity of context.

c8.20

The originating injunctions are few in number, relating as they do to the principal Vedic offerings only, such as the Agnihotra, the new and full moon sacrifices, the Soma sacrifice, and so forth. It might have been expected that there would have been made some effort to systematise these offerings, but no trace of any attempt to effect this end is seen in the Mīmāmsā, which accepts the sacrifices from the sacrificial tradition. It is true that there is a certain degree of order of progress from the simpler to the more complex, but this order is not absolute, being broken by the necessity of performing the Naimittika offerings on the occurrence of the special occasions which evoke them. Nor is there any principle discernible in the rewards attainable by these offerings; they include such material things as wealth, usually in cattle, children, long life, rule, and, most frequently of all, heaven, which is held, on what is known as the Viśvajit principle (IV, 3, 10-16), to be the reward promised in any case in which no specific boon is laid down.

c8.21

The originating injunctions, however, do no more than excite in the mind of the hearer the desire to perform the action which they enjoin, generally in the form of a sacrifice; it remains for other injunctions, those of application, to denote the exact manner of procedure (itikartavyatā), by specifying the numerous subsidiary actions requisite, and the materials and other necessaries for the performance. The discrimination between what is principal and what is subsidiary (śeṣa) occupies the greater part of the attention of the Mīmāmsā, and it stands in a close relation to the motive for the performance of the various actions. Actions may be undertaken according to the Sūtra (IV, 1, 1 ff), followed by Śabarasvāmin, Prabhākara, and Kumārila, either for the sake of the agent (puruṣārtha), or for the sake of the offering (kratvartha), while Pārthasārathi adds a third class of those which are neither for the one purpose or the other, giving as an instance the Agnyādhāna, or piling of the sacred fire. This innovation seems to be without warrant; the original distinction corresponds roughly to that between principal and subordinate actions; the new and full moon offerings serve to benefit man by producing a due reward, while the fore-offerings, which form part of them, are merely subsidiary to the sacrifice; materials normally are subsidiary to the sacrifice, any good results mentioned being treated as merely Arthavāda, though on occasions a thing like curds, which serves as an element in offerings, may be used to make efficient the sense organs of the sacrificer, and thus to serve for his benefit. The last instance shows that the correspondence between actions for the benefit of the agent and principal actions is by no means complete.

c8.22

The question of what things can be subsidiary is the subject of an elaborate investigation; according to Bādari’s opinion, cited in the Mīmāṁsā Sūtra (III, 1, 3), the only subsidiaries are substances, accessories, namely, the Mantras and the deities, and purificatory actions, such as the threshing of corn. To this list Jaimini adds actions or sacrifices generally, results, and agents. The distinction between the two sets, according to the Vṛttikāra, whom Śabarasvāmin cites, is that the first three classes are essentially in their nature subsidiary, while the latter three are in one sense principal, in another subsidiary. Thus the sacrifices are principal with reference to the materials, but subsidiary to the result; the result is principal with reference to the sacrifice, but subsidiary towards the agent; the agent, again, is principal with regard to the result, but subsidiary to such acts as the measuring of the sacrificial post, which is to be related to his height. From another point of view the agent may be said to be subsidiary to the sacrifices, since it is to perform them that he acts.

c8.23

Prabhākara¹ divides the subsidiaries into four classes, according to the heads of class (jāti), quality, substance, and actions, denoted by verbs (bhāvārthātmaka). The last head he divides into those actions which are directly conducive to the fulfilment of the sacrifice (saṁnipatyopakāraka), and those which are more distantly conducive to this result (ārādupakāraka). The former he classifies in four divisions; the bringing into existence (utpatti) of some object, as the production of dough by kneading the corn; the obtaining (prāpti) of a substance already in existence, such as milk; the modification (vikṛti) of a substance, as of ghee by boiling; and the purification (*saṃskṛti*) of substance, such as the sprinkling of water over corn. These actions are all subservient to the sacrifice, and to the Apūrva, which is produced by the sacrifice; they have no distinct Apūrvas of their own. On the other hand, the indirect auxiliaries have Apūrvas of their own, though some, as for instance the drinking of milk by the sacrificer at the Jyotiṣṭoma, have also a seen result. In the case, however, of such a sentence as, “He offers to Tanūnapāt,” no effect on the substance offered or the human agent is obvious, and we are bound to assume an Apūrva appertaining to the action by itself, which is subsidiary and auxiliary to the Apūrva of the sacrifice as a whole. But Kumārila, who contents himself with a simpler division of all subsidiaries into the two classes of direct and indirect,¹ goes much further in seeking to recognise subsidiary Apūrvas. He postulates an Apūrva for every injunction, instead of merely for injunctions of principal actions and such others as cannot be disposed of by any other means, and thus, while he does not assert that there is in the directly auxiliary acts themselves an Apūrva, he holds that there is an Apūrva in the fact that a choice has been made of the particular mode of action, e.g. in selecting the mode of thumping as the proper manner of cleansing the grain.

c8.24

¹ Prakaraṇapañcikā, pp. 202 ff; cf. Mīmāṁsānyāyaprakāśa, pp. 62-67, where the division is twofold, siddha and kriyā.

c8.25

¹ *Śāstradīpikā*, pp. 202, 203 ; *Mīmāṃsāparibhāṣā*, pp. 16 ff.

c8.26

In dealing with injunctions of application there are six means by which the relations of subordination of actions, etc., may be determined (III, 2 and 3). The first and most important indication is express declaration; thus, if the injunction is given to use in honour of the Gārhapatya fire a Mantra to Indra, this declaration (*śruti*) prevails over the normal conclusion that a verse to Indra must come in a ceremony in his honour. Second in importance is indirect implication (*liṅga*); thus it is a rule in the Soma sacrifice that the juice used is to be consumed; when, therefore, a Mantra (T.S. III, 2, 5, 1) is found which seems merely to refer to the drinking, it must be assumed that it covers by its reference to drinking all the operations connected with that action, such as the taking up of the potion, examining it, drinking it, and digesting it. Thirdly, syntactical connection is of value; thus, in one passage (Ś.B. IV, 4, 6, 16-18) we are able to decide that Ṛc and Yajus mean the Ṛgveda and the Yajurveda, and not, as might else be thought, metrical and prose Mantras, because of the syntactical connection with the immediately preceding words. Fourthly, context (prakaraṇa) is of great importance; we have the general injunction that one should perform the new and full moon sacrifices, and the injunction to offer to Tanūnapāt; this principle enables us to find a purpose for the latter offering in connection with the former sacrifices; mere syntactical connection would not here help, as the sentences stand apart and are in themselves quite complete. Fifthly, order (krama) or position (sthāna) is of service; thus in one passage (T.S. I, 6, 2, 4) occur three Mantras without indication of use; we can, however, by finding that elsewhere three offerings are enjoined in connection with these Mantras, assume that the order of the sacrifices and the Mantras is to correspond, one being used with each offering in order. Finally, names (samākhyā) may supply information else wanting; thus Mantras, not otherwise identified, by being styled Hautra are known to fall within the sphere of the Hotṛ priest. Each of these means for adequate reasons is deemed to be of more value than the preceding, and in working out the principle in detail the Mīmāṁsā shows both skill and acumen, even when we admit that in many cases its reasonings were guided by the fact that a certain usage had become regular, and therefore that the sound conclusion was already given by customary practice.

c8.27

While these injunctions of application determine the exact mode in which the ceremonies prescribed in the originating injunctions are to be performed, the order of the actions is prescribed by injunctions of performance (viniyoga-vidhi). On this point, however, there is a difference of view between Prabhākara and Kumārila (V, 1); the latter admits readily the existence of injunctions determining the order of performance by the process of extracting such directions from injunctions of application. Prabhākara, however, insists that an injunction of application cannot be deemed to deal with order, which is a matter of indifference, so long as an act is performed, but even he admits that a few cases occur in which the order of offerings is specially defined. As a rule, however, the order is left to be determined by minor indications. Thus it may be directly enjoined, or the order of the mention of the offerings may be decisive, or the order of the natural actions may be resorted to; thus the gruel must be cooked before the Agnihotra is offered, although the text mentions the latter first. Again, the order of commencement is of importance; in the Vājapeya there are seventeen victims to be immolated; the offerer may begin with any one, but the different acts must be done to each following the initial order adopted. Position, again, is of importance; thus in the Agniṣṭoma there are three animal victims, one to Agni and Soma offered on the day before the sacrifice, the Savanīya on the day of the pressing of the Soma, and a barren cow on the final day. In the Sādyaskra, a modification of the Agniṣṭoma, the three victims are to be offered on one day, that of the pressing; hence, as this is properly the day of the Savanīya victim, it is to be offered first, followed by that for Agni and Soma, and the barren cow. Lastly, the order of the principal actions prevails over that of subordinate actions; thus at the new moon sacrifice the preliminaries for the offering to Indra are performed before those of the offering to Agni, but the offering to Agni comes before that to Indra: accordingly, in the performance of subsequent rites, it is those connected with Agni that take precedence over those connected with Indra. In cases where none of these means give a clear result, any order may be resorted to, and so with offerings performed independently to obtain worldly goods. Nor is there any fixed order between the Soma sacrifices and the simpler rites known as Iṣṭis.

c8.28

There remains the question of the right to perform sacrifices, which forms the subject of a set of injunctions relating to qualification (*adhikāravidhi*). Jaimini, it seems, took a generous view of the position of woman, contemplating (VI, 1, 6-8) her as a performer of sacrifices, though, in the case of her being married, both she and her husband must co-operate in offering, and the Vedic Mantras would be recited by him only. Śabarasvāmin already emphasises the disability of women arising from their ignorance of the Veda, which is not asserted by Jaimini, who doubtless reflects the older usage. Śūdras are excluded (VI, 1, 26, 33) from sacrificing for this very reason of ignorance of the Veda, and in the later texts the admission of women even to a qualified share of the sacrifice is thus anomalous. Some small amount of means is also requisite in a sacrificer, and he must not be incapacitated by disease. Further details are given in the Śrauta Sūtras, which recognise, like Jaimini, the case of certain classes who can take some part in sacrifice though not of the three higher classes, such as the Rathakāra. In the case of Sattras only Brahmans of the Viśvāmitra family studying the same Kalpa Sūtra are qualified to act; all act as sacrificers, and each individually obtains the whole benefit of the sacrifice, instead of it being shared collectively. Moreover, while the death of an ordinary sacrificer destroys the rite, in the case of a Sattra the place of any one incapacitated can be taken by another priest, who, however, obtains no share of the result. Only Brahmans again can eat the remnants of sacrifice, so that, if a Kṣatriya has a Soma sacrifice performed for him, he must be given to drink a substitute for Soma remnants. On the other hand, the threefold duty of sacrifice to the gods, of Vedic study as payment of debts to the Ṛṣis, and of the begetting of children as a debt to the Fathers, is incumbent on all these classes, not merely on those who may wish to attain the benefits of these actions (VI, 2, 31). Again he only may perform the Viśvajit (VI, 7) who can afford a fee of 1,200 gold pieces, but, when he is bidden to give up all in it, that applies only to his riches, not to, e.g. his parents, and of his riches there are excluded lands, horses, and slaves in personal attendance, while the 1,000 years of performance is interpreted as so many days.

c8.29

In addition to these divisions according to content injunctions can be classified on the basis of the knowledge already possessed by the agent of the mode of performance or actions possible.¹ Thus an original injunction (apūrvavidhi) is one which enjoins something otherwise unknown, as when a direction is given that grains are to be washed. A restrictive injunction (niyamavidhi) serves to fix as alone valid one out of several possible means of carrying out such an action, such as the husking of grain, which an injunction requires to be performed by pounding. An injunction of limitation or exclusion (parisaṃkhyāvidhi) precludes one of several alternatives which otherwise might be resorted to; thus the injunction, “Five animals among animals with five nails may be eaten,” precludes the eating of any animals not having that adornment. In this case the preclusion is implied, in other cases it may be explicit.

c8.30

¹ Kumārila on Mīmāṁsā Sūtra, I, 2, 42; Arthasaṁgraha, pp. 17, 18; Mīmāṁsāparibhāṣā, pp. 10-12, 41.

c8.31

While an injunction directs a positive act, a prohibition (niṣedha) serves to turn a man away from performing the action expressed in the verb and its object. The prohibition does not lead to any desirable result such as heaven; it serves none the less a useful purpose; the man, who obeys the direction not to eat the mysterious Kalañja, by observing this taboo escapes the hell which else had been his fate. In the technical phraseology of the Mīmāṃsā the negative applies not to the sense of the verb, but to the optative affix; as an optative urges us to action, so a negated optative turns away from it. In certain cases, however, this normal condition of affairs is precluded, and the negative is immediately connected with the verbal sense. Of these the most important is the case (IV, 1, 3-6) of negative passages headed, “His vows are as follows.” The Brahmacārin is under an obligation not to look at the sun as a vow; the force of this is not that he is to avoid the evil result of looking, for there is no such result, but, as the context indicates, he is to effect the destruction of evil by the resolution of not-looking at the sun. A similar mode of interpreting an apparent prohibition is seen in the case of the rule, “He should say, ‘Ho, we sacrifice,’ at the beginning of all sacrificial verses, but not at the Anuyāja offerings.” The reason for this procedure is that, if the rule were regarded as a prohibition proper, then it would necessarily follow that there was an antecedent rule enjoining the action, since a prohibition implies a previous rule to the opposite effect, and, this being so, the result of the prohibition would not be what was desired, since, owing to the equal validity of all Vedic sentences, the only result would be to make the action optional. Thus, instead of a prohibition, we have what is technically styled a Paryudāsa, and the sense of the rule is that the words, “Ho, we sacrifice,” which are uttered with the sacrificial verses, are to be uttered with those verses only which do not occur in Anuyājas.

c8.32

These are the main topics, which, with numerous excursions into subsidiary detail, fill Pādas II-IV of Adhyāya I and Adhyāyas II-VI of the Mīmāṁsā Sūtra. The next two Adhyāyas deal with the transfer of details from the archetype to sacrifices whose form is derived from it, a discussion rendered necessary by the fact that in the Brāhmaṇas there are many cases in which it is presumed that the details of one offering will be supplied from another, as in the often-quoted case of the Iṣu offering which is based on the Śyena. The transference (*atideśa*) applies not merely to the mode of performance, but to materials and other details.¹ It is regulated by context (*prakaraṇa*) or position; thus the Iṣu offering follows the Śyena model, because they are enjoined in the same context. The rule of position again lays it down that the deity of the original offering is to take the same place in the transferred offering, and the offering material is also to be transferred. Transfer takes place by express injunction, as in the case of the Iṣu offering; by implied injunction, as in the case of the offering to Sūrya, which is based on the new and full moon offerings; by mention of the name of a sacrifice, as in the case of the Māsāgnihotra, which is made in accordance with the Agnihotra; or by mention of the name of a purification (*saṁskāra*), as when, the Avabhṛtha being mentioned at the Varuṇapraghāsa, it is performed like the Avabhṛtha, or concluding bath, of the Agniṣṭoma where the rite is purificatory.

c8.33

¹ Prakaraṇapañcikā, p. 227 (v. 13).

c8.34

The process of transfer, however, frequently involves modifications (*ūha*) in the Mantras used to accompany the rites, in order to adapt them to the change of circumstance.

c8.35

Elaborate rules are accordingly given in Adhyāya IX of the Sūtra on this head. Nor only Mantras are altered, but also Sāmans; thus at the Vaiśyastoma the Kaṇvarathantara replaces the orginal Bṛhat and Rathantara Sāmans. In some cases purifications are modified; thus the wild rice (nīvāra) used at the Vājapeya offering, in place of the ordinary rice, is subjected to the processes of purification applicable to the latter. In other cases Mantras are not altered, but the number of times of their use is modified.

c8.36

In other cases the transference must be accompanied by the annulment of details which are now inappropriate. The cases in which this occurs, enumerated in Adhyāya X, are numerous and complicated; thus an act may by change be rendered useless; in the Prājāpatya rite, based on the new and full moon sacrifices, grains of gold replace rice grains, and the operations of husking and washing are therefore annulled. Again, if Yajus Mantras are given to be recited as Nigadas, which are invitations and therefore must be said aloud, the normal rule of muttering of Yajus Mantras is annulled in favour of the necessary loud utterance. Annulment, again, may be partial or complete, and the later text books take special pleasure in developing the diverse forms in which it may appear. Opposed to annulment is combination (samuccaya) in which the new details of the derivative form are only added to the details of the original offering.

c8.37

In Adhyāya XI the question is raised of the relation of subsidiary to principal offerings as regards repetition of performance. In certain cases a single performance of subsidiaries gives effective aid to more than one principal action, as in the case of the Agnyādhāna, which need only once be performed, the same consecrated fire serving for all subsequent sacrifices; this aid is styled Tantra. On the other hand, some subsidiaries must be repeated with each principal offering; thus the subsidiaries of the rites performed at new and full moon respectively in those offerings are nearly the same, but the lapse of time between the two rites renders the repetition of the subsidiaries essential; this case is styled Āvāpa. But in some cases where a subsidiary is merely performed for the purpose of aiding one principal operation, it may nonetheless aid also another principal operation; thus the fore-offerings for the victim to Agni and Soma at the Soma sacrifice serve for the cake offering also, and, if an altar has been made ready for a Soma sacrifice, the sacrificer may perform an Iṣṭi with it, if he will. This form is termed Prasaṅga.

c8.38

Finally, in Adhyāya XII the topic of options (*vikalpa*) is disposed of; options are of many kinds,¹ indicated by reasoning, or by direct declaration, or depending on the wish of the agent; nineteen subdivisions of each type are made, of which eight depend on the option furthering the performance of the rite, and eleven on its bringing about some benefit for the agent. By another principle of division options are classed as limited or fixed (*vyavasthita*) and unlimited (*avyavasthita*), each class again being subdivided according as it rests on reasoning or declaration. But options as a rule are open to many objections, though this defect does not apply either to fixed options, or to those which depend on the will of the agent. The subjects to which options may apply are most varied, the use or non-use of certain Mantras, preference for one colour or another, the choice of kinds of grain, mode of action, and so forth.

c8.39

¹ *Mīmāṃsābālaprakāśa*, p. 152; *Mīmāṃsāparibhāṣā*, pp. 41-44

Cites (13)