Indian Philosophy v2.c25.s6: XV Apūrva
Indian Philosophy v2.c25.s6
- Language
- English
XV Apūrva
v2.c25.s6.2
Acts are enjoined with a view to their fruits. There is a necessary connection between the act and its result. An act performed to-day cannot effect a result at some future date unless it gives rise before passing away to some unseen result. Jaimini assumes the existence of such an unseen force, which he calls apūrva,¹ which may be regarded either as the imperceptible antecedent of the fruit, or as the after-state of the act. Since sacrifices and the like are laid down for the purpose of definite results to follow after a long time, the deferred fruition of the action is not possible unless it be through the medium of apūrva.² Apūrva is the metaphysical link between work and its result.³ The Mīmāmsakas are unwilling to trace the results of actions to God's will, since a uniform cause cannot account for the variety of effects.⁴
v2.c25.s6.3
¹ Something new, not known before.
v2.c25.s6.4
² P.M.S., ii. 1. 5.
v2.c25.s6.5
³ Cp. Bhīmācārya's definition : Yāgādijanyaḥ svargādijanakaḥ kaścana guṇaviśeṣaḥ (Nyāyakośa).
v2.c25.s6.6
⁴ S.B., iii. 2. 40.
v2.c25.s6.7
According to Kumārila, apūrva is a capability in the principal action or in the agent, which did not exist prior to the performance of the action and whose existence is proved by the authority of the scriptures. The positive force created by the act and leading to the attainment of the result is the apūrva. Arthāpatti or implication, proves the existence of apūrva. If we do not assume its existence, many Vedic passages become inexplicable. A sacrifice performed by an agent produces directly a certain potency in the agent which resides in him like many other powers throughout life, at the end of which it gains for him the promised reward. According to Prabhākara, apūrva cannot be in the self, since by its very omnipresence the self is inactive. He does not accept the view that the action tends to produce in the agent a certain faculty, which is the immediate cause of the final result. That the sacrifice produces such a faculty is not proved either by perception, inference or scripture. Action is brought out by the exertion of the agent, and causal potency must reside in this exertion. So we must assume the faculty in the action and not the agent. Again in iii. 1. 3, it is established that the kārya is the direct cause of the production of the result desired by the prompted (niyojya) person. This kārya cannot be the act, since the act is not the direct cause of the final result. The kārya is brought about by the act (kṛti) or the exertion of the agent, which is due to the prompting (niyoga).⁵ The exertion produces in the agent a result (kārya), to which also Prabhākara gives the name of niyoga, since this acts as an incentive to the agent to put forth exertion towards the performance of the action. But this niyoga cannot produce the result unless it is aided by fate, as Śālikanātha expresses it. Prabhākara's⁶ view is not easy to follow, and does not seem to be an improvement on Kumārila's.
v2.c25.s6.8
⁵ iii. 1. 3.
v2.c25.s6.9
⁶ Prakaraṇapañcikā, pp. 185 ff.
v2.c25.s6.10
Uddyotakara criticises the doctrine of apūrva.¹ It cannot be eternal, since, on such a view, there would be no possibility of death, as merit and demerit would be eternal. If apūrva is one, then the happiness and the misery of all persons should be alike. We cannot say that, though apūrva is one, the manifesting agencies are many, since we do not know what the manifesting agency is, whether it is the capacity to bring about the result or a property belonging to apūrva. We cannot say whether the apūrva is one with the capacity or different from it. If we say that the hidden apūrva is made manifest, we must explain how it is first hidden. Even if the eternal apūrva be different for different persons, the difficulties of manifestation are not avoided. Śaṃkara criticises the theory of apūrva on the ground that it is non-spiritual and cannot act unless it is moved by something spiritual. The results of actions cannot be explained by the principle of apūrva alone. If it is said that God acts in accordance with the principle of apūrva, it is just the view of the Vedānta that God acts with reference to the law of karma.²
v2.c25.s6.11
¹ N.V., i. i. 7.
v2.c25.s6.12
² Karmāpekṣād apūrvāpekṣād vā yathāstu tathāstu īśvarād phalam (S.B., iii. 2. 41).
Cites (2)
- Mīmāṃsāsūtra — Jaimini, Sanskrit
- Prakaraṇapañcikā — Śālikanātha Miśra, Sanskrit