Mimamsa interpretation of Vedic Injunctions (Vidhi)
by Shreebas Debnath | 2018 | 68,763 words
This page relates ‘Utpattividhi (Introduction)� of the study on the Mimamsa theory of interpretation of Vedic Injunctions (vidhi). The Mimamsakas (such as Jaimini, Shabara, etc.) and the Mimamsa philosophy emphasizes on the Karmakanda (the ritualistic aspect of the Veda). Accordingly to Mimamsa, a careful study of the Veda is necessary in order to properly understand dharma (religious and spiritual achievement—the ideal of human life).
Go directly to: Footnotes.
Chapter 3 - Utpattividhi (Introduction)
The Utpadtividhi [utpadti-vidhi] describes the nature of a work. For example, �Ծdzٰ� juhoti� (He should sacrifice by the Agnihotrahoma). Here the work agnihotra is related to injunction as a means for the desirable object. It implies that one should get his desirable object by performing the Agnihotrahoma.
Here a question arises. Every sacrifice or oblation (homa) is characterised by substances and deities. But in the aforesaid utpattividhi these are not stated. So, can it be called a utpattividhi? The solution is that it is not conducive to any fallacy; because there is no hard-and-fast rule that the characteristic features of a sacrifice must be cited in a utpattividhi. On the other hand, an injunction can not be judged as a utpattividhi by the mere mention of the characteristic features of a sacrifice. Otherwise �dadhanā juhoti� (He should sacrifice by curd.) would also be a utpattividhi. So, �Ծdzٰ� juhoti� must be a utpattividhi. Actually �dadhanā juhoti� this ṇa (an injunction which conveys some additional information for another main injunction) states curd as the substance for agnihotra. The deity is mentioned in another vedic sentence.
The ղٳپīⲹṇa says:
�agnir jyotir jyotir Ծ� پ ⲹ� juhoti, sūryo jyotir dzپ� ūⲹ� پ ٲ�.�[1]
(He offers at evening by uttering the hymn, ‘Fire is light, light is fire. .� He offers in the morning by uttering the hymn, ‘The sun is light, light is the sun. .�)
Here the word �� means ‘an exclamation used in offering oblations to the gods (with dative). Here it is an indeclinable. In this vedic sentence Agni and Surya have been mentioned as deities for homa. So, �Ծdzٰ� juhoti� in this injunction agnihotra is a technical name. This sacrifice is performed to Agni and ūⲹ deities in the morning and evening twilight respectively. The �tat-prakhya� maxim has been used here to explain this solution. �Tat� denotes the deity and �prakhya� means denotative. This maxim has been borrowed from Jaimini’s aphorism �tatprakhya� cānyaśāstram.�[2] It means, ‘it is known by that name, but the description is in another book.� If any injunction does not state its deity and necessary substances, then these are described in another place and we should depend on that description. So, the conclusion is that �Ծdzٰ� juhoti� is utpattividhi, and not a ṇa.
Ś峾 has given another example of utpattividhi. He also established the utpattividhitva (the state of being utpattividhi) of the injunction, �岵m 岵yati � (He should sprinkle clarified butter upon the sacrificial fire). In ܱṃśu岵 (a kind of sacrificial ceremony in which hymns are uttered in a low voice) this 岵 (sprinkling) is performed. Here the ū貹ṣi (one who puts an objection to a decision) says that this injunction is an example of ṇa. He supports himself by saying this that if it is a ṇa, then there is no necessity of accepting the secondary meaning as in �udbhitā yajeta� (He should sacrifice by the 岵.) The vedic sentence �岵� nirvartayati� (He accomplishes the act of sprinkling.) lays down the substance of the injunction �岵m 岵yati.�
Ś峾 clearly presented the view of the ū貹ṣi. He said�
�na ca ṇapakṣe ṣaṇ� bhavati yathā udbhidā yajeta iti. agnihotre samāsenāvagata� guṇavidhānam. āghāre’pi, 岵� nirvartayati iti śrutyā eva guṇo vidhīyate.�[3]
The Գپ (one who makes a conclusion) says that the quality (substance and deity of a sacrifice) is known from another text. And the text is, �catur ṛhīٲ� vā etad abhūt tasyā’ghāram āghārya.� Here substance is mentioned for the act of �岵�.
Ś峾 explained the word 岵.’�
�dīrghaghārā kṣaraṇakriya prasiddha ’g��[4]
(Sprinkling or oozing is known as 岵.). So, �岵� is a nomenclature of an activity. So, the sentence �岵m 岵yati� is a kind of karmotpattividhi. It is not a ṇa.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
ղٳپīⲹṇa�2.1.2.10
[2]:
īṃs岹śԲ�1.4.4
[3]:
Śābarabhāṣya of Mīmāṃsādarśanam�1.4.4
[4]:
Ibid.