Liberation in early Advaita Vedanta
by Aleksandar Uskokov | 2018 | 195,782 words
This page relates 鈥楳imamsa Classification of Vedic Texts and the Upanishads鈥� of the study named 鈥淪cripture and the Hermeneutics of Liberation in Early Advaita Vedanta鈥� which highlights how liberation (in Sanskrit: Moksha) is posited as the 鈥渉ighest good鈥濃�攊.e., it represents freedom from the cyclical process of birth and rebirth. It further shows that Shankara鈥檚 doctrine emphasizes that liberation is solely derived from knowledge of Brahman.
Go directly to: Footnotes.
7. 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 Classification of Vedic Texts and the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉
We saw, thus, how the 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 understood ritual as a means of human felicity. By and large, they considered the Vedas to be only about this: the purpose of the Veda was to enjoin ritual and communicate in some way that its performance is a means of human happiness. For that purpose, a text had to be worked out which would cover all the details of the performance as well as the knowledge and know-how necessary for it. This text would need to contain knowledge about the agent, details about offering preparation, the use of implements and the role of the recipients, a script for the performance, an incentive for the sacrificer, all teleologically driven by the injunction which introduces the ritual. The text should be constituted from the Veda, and 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 classified the entire Veda by types of passages that it contains in terms of their ritual applicability. In this section, we will outline this classification, and then we will try to pinpoint the role of the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 in it.
惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 classified the Veda in four kinds of texts: (1) vidhi or injunctions; (2) mantra or sacrificial chants; (3) 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 or descriptive passages; and (4) 苍腻尘补诲丑别测补 or names. It is no surprise that the injunctions were considered the central texts: only they were directly related to dharma. The injunction group referred to the portions of the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 which enjoin the performance of sacrifices and included all kinds of injunctive texts, which 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 meticulously classified. Vidhi covered not only the principal injunctions, but everything that is enjoined in the sacrifice, for instance the 蝉补苍苍颈辫腻迟测辞辫补办腻谤补办补蝉, the 腻谤腻诲-耻辫补办腻谤补办补蝉 and all the individual actions they involved and auxiliaries they required. Crucially, they involve everything that is to be understood 鈥渏ust as it is heard.鈥�
Injunctions were classified primarily based on two criteria: (1) what they enjoin; and, (2) how they enjoin it. Under the first rubric, one common division is into utpatti-vidhi, an originative injunction in which the predicate is the principal element of the ritual performance; and viniyoga-vidhi, an applicative injunction which affirms that some auxiliary is related to the principal. The two are commonly referred to as a pair by 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 in the 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补鈥檚 罢补苍迟谤补-痴腻谤迟迟颈办补 on 艢补产补谤补鈥檚 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻-厂奴迟谤补-叠丑腻峁补, and we can think of them as 辫耻谤耻峁Ｄ乺迟丑补-vidhi and kratvartha-vidhi, enjoining that which is for the good of man or that which is for the good of the ritual, respectively. Good instances would be 补驳苍颈丑辞迟谤补峁� juhoti, 鈥淗e performs the daily fire ritual,鈥� and dadhn膩 juhoti, 鈥淗e uses yoghurt as the oblation.鈥� To this pair, a third is commonly added, 补诲丑颈办腻谤补-vidhi, a statement that introduces the ritual agent who is entitled to reap the fruits of the sacrifice, for instance the famous svarga-k膩mo yajeta, 鈥淗e who wants heaven should sacrifice.鈥�
It is not necessary that these be stated in separate sentences. However, an injunction can affirm only one thing, and in complex injunctions the other elements are considered qualifiers of that one thing, producing thus a 惫颈艣颈峁ａ弓补-vidhi, a qualified injunction. When these three injunctions in a ritual are put together through the three features of syntactic expectancy, 腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ�, in a hierarchy ascertained through the 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 principles of interpretation, they produce a prayoga-vidhi, a whole manual that delineates the integral organization of the ritual and the manner of its performance, as well as all the other details required. This is the text that I referred to above as the final product that covers the whole ritual procedure.[1] This is commonly listed as the fourth type of injunction in this classification, and we should take a good note of it because it will play an important role in the 尘补丑腻-惫腻办测补 idea. This fourfold classification is given in later manuals, but the individual types of injunctions are common currencies in 艢补产补谤补鈥檚 and 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补鈥檚 works.[2]
The second classification of injunction asks the question, how is something enjoined. By this criterion, injunctions are commonly classified in three types: (1) 补辫奴谤惫补-vidhi; (2) niyama-vidhi; and (3) 辫补谤颈蝉补峁卥丑测腻-vidhi. The locus classicus on these is 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补鈥檚 Tantra-痴腻谤迟迟颈办补 on 艢补产补谤补鈥檚 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻-厂奴迟谤补-叠丑腻峁补 1.2.34, although 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 there does not mention 补辫奴谤惫补-vidhi, but rather talks about vidhi, niyama and 辫补谤颈蝉补峁卥丑测腻.[3]
An 补辫奴谤惫补-vidhi is a statement that enjoins by disclosing an otherwise unknown causal relationship. Take, for instance, the statement vr墨h墨n prok峁ti, 鈥渉e besprinkles the rice,鈥� that is an action of the type of 蝉补峁僺办峁泃颈 or consecration, and adds an excellence of some kind to the substance over which it operates. That there is some causal relationship between the action of besprinkling and the excellence that obtains subsequently in the rice is not empirically knowable, and is solely due to the injunction. We can look at this from the point of view of the desired result. We need an element of excellence in the rice so that it can be used in preparing the sacrificial cake. Because this excellence is invisible, no action is empirically related to it. In 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补鈥檚 words, such relationship does not obtain 鈥渁bsolutely.鈥� For all we know, it may be the action of arranging the rice into the image of LeBron James that will furnish the required excellence. Nothing of the kind is known to us 鈥渂efore the sentence,鈥� and for this reason this type of injunction is 鈥減ure,鈥� fully in the domain of the Veda.[4] It is exclusively related to unseen results. It is eminently clear that this injunction is related to the original meaning of the notion of 补辫奴谤惫补, unprecedented as knowable only from the Veda.
There may be cases, however, when two ritual elements are commonly related, in multiple possible ways. Keeping with the rice example, once the rice has been consecrated, its husk needs to be removed so that it can be used in making the cake. We know how to do that, and we could imagine more than one appropriate ways鈥攖his is not empirically unavailable. An injunction in relation to this reads, vr墨h墨n avahanti, 鈥渉e threshes the rice.鈥� The predicate of this injunction is not the action of rice preparation, but its specific mode of threshing qualified by the natural consequence of excluding all other possibilities, never mind if they are all accounted for or not. The important thing is that optionality obtains in general. This type of injunction is called niyama, restriction.
When, however, there is a similar situation but one in which the whole scope of what can be affirmed is known, and the point is not to affirm the stated element as intended but to exclude whatever is not stated, this injunction is called 辫补谤颈蝉补峁卥丑测腻, exclusion. Take, for instance, the statement a艣v膩bhidh膩n墨m 膩datte, 鈥渉e takes the horse鈥檚 bridle.鈥� While we need not go into involved details, the statement as it stands is problematic because the action of holding is supposed to be performed alongside the recital of a certain mantra, but the statement seems to reiterate something already affirmed in a related text, which puts its purpose in jeopardy: a 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺 cannot repeat something known. The solution is to take the statement as intending not to enjoin the holding of the 丑辞谤蝉别鈥檚 bridle while reciting the mantra, but as intending to exclude the holding of the donkey鈥檚 bridle which presents itself as an assumed alternative. The restriction still denotes the action of holding: holding as qualified not by what is said, but by what is not said when it could have been said.
This, obviously, leaves a lot of leeway for dissent, and it is often a matter of disagreement whether a specific statement is a restriction or an exclusion. We need not worry about this, but we should note well how the three are defined, because they will play a formative role in 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 making sense of meditation vs. reflection in 痴别诲腻苍迟补. To summarize, the first classification provides for the structure of the ritual: it is set in motion by a sentence that presents the central ritual element; ritual details are related to the central element; the agent entitled to the results is pointed out; the structure itself is given. The second classification, on the other hand, is concerned with knowing causal relationships that govern the elements of the ritual.
The second group of Vedic texts, mantras, referred to versified composition, generally in the Vedic 厂补峁僪颈迟腻蝉, which are recited in a sacrifice accompanying parts of the ritual and are intended as markers of these parts, the respective deities, the offertories, etc. 鈥淸M]antras allude to what is going on in the sacrifice as the priest executes it. Thus, recited in the proper sequence, they help the priest see what he is doing and remind him of what has yet to be done. They provide a running narrative of the rite.鈥�[5] Taber points to a crucial feature of theirs: 鈥淸T]heir meaning is usually evident as soon as they are pronounced. They are grammatical; they make sense of themselves. But, still, when a mantra is presented in the Veda as a formula to be uttered in the context of the ritual, one may take it to express what it means, or one may not.鈥�[6] Unlike the injunctions that must be taken as heard, mantras are more like a soundtrack. They do not say anything about Indra, Agni, the sacrificial fire, etc., but indicate what is happening at a given moment in the ritual and help the priest recall that detail, much as Wagner鈥檚 鈥淲edding March鈥� played at a wedding to accompany the entrance of the bride is not about Elsa, but marks the entrance event. The reference of the waltz is the event, not Elsa.
As for the 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 or stories and descriptions found alongside the ritualistic sections of the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉, they were a problem for 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 because they evidently do not enjoin an action鈥�all that the Vedas are valid for鈥攂ut are part of the Vedas and cannot be discarded without compromising the validity of the corpus. An additional problem with these passages was that many of them were just contrary to sensory evidence. Think, for instance, of the many bandhus or correlations in the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 and the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉, such as the famous identification of the sacrificial horse with the universe at the opening of the 叠峁沨补诲-腻谤补峁噛补办补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲. Given the premise that the Vedas are valid only regarding (ritual) action and do not teach about things that we can see, what to do with such descriptions many of which are plain false and all of which are not about action?
艢补产补谤补鈥檚 solution was to treat such passages as not being truth claims at all. Consider any story. A story can do two things: (1) it can give an account of past events; or (2) it can cause attraction or repulsion to something else, like an advertisement that makes you want the product no matter how accurate it is. This is what 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补s do: they advertise the ritual action. Their validity does not consist in whether what they say is true or not鈥攖hough one can always interpret them to avoid contradiction with the evident鈥攂ut in aiding the performance of the sacrifice by making it look good.[7] To take the standard 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 example: 鈥淥ne who wants prosperity should immolate a white animal to 痴腻测耻. 痴腻测耻 is the swiftest deity. 痴腻测耻 comes with his own property and leads him [the sacrificer] to prosperity.鈥� In 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补鈥檚 words, knowing that the cause and the effects are alike, one is made to believe that the sacrifice to the swiftest deity will make the result arrive without much delay.[8] This makes the 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补s purposeful and, therefore, valid, not in terms of truth, but action.
碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 brought his hallmark sophistication to the issue of 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补s.[9] I mentioned that he distinguished two kinds of 产丑腻惫补苍腻 or verbal productivity, 补谤迟丑墨 or actual and 艣补产诲墨 or verbal 产丑腻惫补苍腻. In the paradigmatic injunction svarga-k膩mo yajeta, this 产丑腻惫补苍腻 had the form of 鈥渂ring about鈥� for the 补谤迟丑墨 产丑腻惫补苍腻 and 鈥渟hould鈥� for the 艣补产诲墨 产丑腻惫补苍腻. The 补谤迟丑墨 产丑腻惫补苍腻 further had three points which it required for its completion: an object (heaven), an instrument (the sacrifice) and a procedure of sacrificial performance. Now, the 艣补产诲墨 产丑腻惫补苍腻 similarly needs to become complete in the same three points in order to accomplish its objective, which is to get the man perform the sacrifice. The 艣补产诲墨 产丑腻惫补苍腻 is all about the taking up of the sacrifice, not its accomplishment, so naturally its object, answerable to the kim-feature of the 腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ� or the verbal need, is the taking up of the action, for which reason the sacrificer must be induced.
Further, the 艣补产诲墨 产丑腻惫补苍腻 requires an instrument for effectuating this, corresponding to the kena-feature of the 腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ�, and for this it must give rise to an understanding of the injunction on the part of the sacrificer, one that is contingent on experiencing that there is a causal relation between the action to which he is prompted and the result that he expects. 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 calls these two鈥攖he kim and kena 蹿别补迟耻谤别蝉鈥�辫耻谤耻峁-辫谤补惫峁泃迟颈 and vidhi-箩帽腻苍补 respectively, engaging man in the sacrifice through understanding the injunction.
Finally, the 艣补产诲墨 产丑腻惫补苍腻 needs to find a way to do that, corresponding to the katham-feature of the 腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ�. The question, then, is how the optative suffix which expresses 产丑腻惫补苍腻鈥攁nd 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 is quick to point that the insentient suffix operates through the sacrificer鈥檚 awareness鈥攃an convince the sacrificer that the ritual action can furnish the result. 鈥淔or, a man acts led by reason, and as long as he does not understand something as good, he will not act upon it.鈥�[10] We shift perspective now, from the optative suffix to the sacrificer, because the sacrificer must see the desirability of the sacrifice. This, 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 claims, can happen in two ways. The sacrificer can see, first, the excellence of the ritual action; it is an action laid down by a Vedic injunction, and the Veda is faultless. In this case, the 艣补产诲墨 产丑腻惫补苍腻 operates solely through the optative suffix. Or, he can realize how the sacrifice is good because some of the deities or substances that are its part are excellent in some way. This is accomplished by the 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 sections: hearing, as I already said, how 痴腻测耻 is the swiftest deity, one鈥檚 understanding that the cause and the effects are alike is activated and a conviction that the sacrifice to the swiftest deity will make the result arrive quickly is born. The fact that an 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 is juxtaposed to an injunction makes these two seek each other for completion, and while the suffix could perform the same function alone, the presence of the 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 suspends that. 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 calls this feature of the 艣补产诲墨 产丑腻惫补苍腻 corresponding to the 颈迟颈办补谤迟补惫测补迟腻, the katham feature, the knowledge of excellence or pr膩艣astya-箩帽腻苍补.[11]
The question now presents itself: where is the place of the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 and the knowledge of the Self as its domain in this classification? The seemingly easy answer is: the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 are part of the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 and they do not enjoin action (or so it seems); ergo, they must be 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补s.[12] This is how scholars tend to present the 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 understanding of the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉. For instance, Halbfass writes: 鈥湴艹灸灏北舨� mentions the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 side by side with 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补s, and he tends to see the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲ic teaching about the Self as being auxiliary to dharma, that is, to the performance of ritual actions, insofar as the notion of a noncorporeal permanent self is a condition and an incentive for performing such acts which are supposed to bear fruit in another life or birth.鈥�[13] Hirst explicitly identifies the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲ic statements about the as self as 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 in 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻: 鈥淭hese [non-injunctive statements] last were classified as 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补, secondary statements whose real function was to encourage a person to undertake ritual action. So, for example, all statements about the self were seen, not primarily as descriptions of the self, but as motivators to action, the self being the one who would accrue the result of the sacrifice performed.鈥�[14] 鈥淭he application of the category of 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 (secondary passages) (v) is slightly more complicated. The Ritualists developed this notion to account for apparently descriptive passages, particularly those found in the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉.鈥�[15] Rambachan gives a similar explanation:
The 笔奴谤惫补 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 contention that the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 have no independent purpose but are merely an appendage to the main body of injunctive text was a formidable challenge to 艢补峁卥补谤补. 鈥� Many Vedic texts, for example, including the sentences of the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 (惫别诲腻苍迟补-惫腻办测补蝉) are seen as having their purpose only in praising what has been enjoined in the injunctions (PSM 1.2.7). 鈥� According to 笔奴谤惫补 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻, the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 are merely an appendage to the main body of injunctive statements. The utility of the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 lies only in praising the prescribed action or in providing some useful information, such as knowledge of the deity or agent for performance of a particular rite.[16]
The fact of the matter is more complex than this simple identification of 鈥渂eing subordinate to dharma鈥� with 鈥渂eing 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补,鈥� and its corollary 鈥渢he 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 as a unit are subordinate, ergo they are 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补.鈥� Let us examine carefully what 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 says about the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉. To begin with, 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补鈥檚 understanding of the complex ritual causality found a place for the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 as providing knowledge about the agent in the sacrifice, ultimately serving the purpose of action but having truth value. We should recall here the 辫耻谤耻峁Ｄ乺迟丑补/kratvartha and principal/auxiliary organization of the sacrifice. The ritual agent in the sacrifice was an auxiliary factor, a kratvartha, and the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲ic texts which present knowledge of this agent were ultimately absorbed in the principal ritual action through the agent. Unlike the 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补s, which for 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 were strictly in the realm of 艣补产诲墨 产丑腻惫补苍腻 where truth values do not matter, the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲ic passages about the Self were absorbed in the 补谤迟丑墨 产丑腻惫补苍腻 where accurate knowledge was important, although ultimately made use of in action. Ascertaining the details of procedure that involved the ritual agent was not related to like or dislike, and the success of the sacrifice was predicated on knowing such details. It is significant that 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 placed the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 right there. 鈥淭he 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 discharge their need (腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ�) through presenting the agent that is subordinate to the ritual action.鈥�[17]
Thus, 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 included the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲ic description of the Self in the 补谤迟丑墨 产丑腻惫补苍腻, before he had the occasion to introduce the 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补s and the 艣补产诲墨 产丑腻惫补苍腻 as their domain. The issue of 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 appears with passages which are fanciful or do not contribute anything obvious to the action. They are not required as part of the sacrificial procedure, but are present in the text and must be accommodated because of that. 痴腻测耻 may be the fastest deity for all we know, but the point is that this does not matter in the sacrificial procedure. The situation with the Self is different, and in one sense can be compared to the sacrificial cake: the cake is subordinate to the action of offering, yet the passages which enjoin how to prepare it are not 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补, because they are predicated on having truth value. They enter the 颈迟颈办补谤迟补惫测补迟腻. With the Self, of course, the issue was somewhat more crucial, since without a permanent Self that enjoys the results of the sacrifice the authority of the Veda would be compromised. 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 thought that such knowledge of the Self as an eternal agent and enjoyer of ritual action follows even from the bare injunctive statements through scriptural postulation鈥攖here must be an eternal Self that will enjoy the results, or otherwise what the injunction says would be false鈥攂ut such knowledge becomes firm through the study of the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉.[18]
However, in other places 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 does treat 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲ic texts as 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补. For instance, in his account of the origin of 蝉尘峁泃颈, he attributed the various theories of creation and dissolution common among Vedic folks to ideas that originate in the mantras and 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补s.[19] This certainly includes sections of the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉. He traced even the origin of some Buddhist ideas鈥攊dealism, momentariness, the doctrine of no-Self鈥攖o the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 and 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补, explicitly paired, and meaning to prevent excessive attachment to sensual matters.[20] Reasoning also had origin in the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 and 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 in pair.[21] These ideas of his were not particularly revolutionary either: for most of them he had a precedent in 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈.[22] We may, further, venture to guess that he would have classified the Self-Brahman identification in the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 as 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补, since such a doctrine, as noted by Nakamura, makes the 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 doctrine, predicated on a plurality of Selves, fundamentally impossible. 鈥淭he eternal existence of the individual 腻迟尘补苍, from the standpoint of the highest truth, is absolutely necessary and indispensable as the presupposition on which the 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 philosophy can establish their rites.鈥�[23] Finally, 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 refuted Ved膩ntic theories of the origin of the world and rejected the very possibility of a creator, which is so prominent in 痴别诲腻苍迟补.[24]
Therefore, it seems to me that it is a notional mistake to talk about a general 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 attitude to the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 as a single corpus, as it is commonly done. 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 clearly had an idea that they are distinct, focused on knowledge of the Self, but they contained the same types of sentences as the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉: injunctions and their auxiliaries, and 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补s. The fact that both are treated as auxiliary to dharma is not the characteristic that calls for putting an equation sign; there is, rather, a crucial difference, insofar as one give information that must be taken literally and the other is for the purpose of inspiration.
The key distinction in attitude between 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 and Advaita 痴别诲腻苍迟补 was not about the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲蝉 being 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补, but about what kind of Self they presented: A Self that is essentially a ritual agent and an enjoyer, or a single aloof Self, one for all. A corollary to this concerned the status of passages that talk about liberation from 蝉补峁僺腻谤补: are they true statements of result, or just statements of praise? We will see this conflict already in the next chapter.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
See Tachikawa, Bahulkar and Kolhatkar 2001 for a ritual modeled on the 顿补谤艣补-辫奴谤峁嘺尘腻蝉补 and a corresponding prayoga-惫腻办测补 serving as a manual of its performance, the 笔补惫颈迟谤别峁ａ弓颈-辫谤补测辞驳补.
[2]:
A good overview is available in Pandurangi 2006:177-8.
[3]:
碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补鈥檚 definition, which he then expands on, says: 鈥淎 sentence is an injunction when [some causal relationship] absolutely does not obtain [by other means of knowing]. A restriction happens when there is [general] optionality, whereas an exclusion when such optionality obtains in regard both to one and another.鈥濃�攙idhir atyantam apr膩pte 苍颈测补尘补岣� 辫腻办峁办别 sati | tatra c膩nyatra ca pr膩pte parisa峁卥hyeti k墨rtyate. 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补鈥檚 罢补苍迟谤补-痴腻谤迟迟颈办补 on 艢补产补谤补鈥檚 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻-厂奴迟谤补-叠丑腻峁补 1.2.34, I.152.
[4]:
tatra yo 鈥榯yantam apr膩pto na ca pr膩psyati pr膩g vacan膩d ity avagamyate tatra niyogo 艣耻诲诲丑补 eva vidhir. 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补鈥檚 罢补苍迟谤补-痴腻谤迟迟颈办补 on 艢补产补谤补鈥檚 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻-厂奴迟谤补-叠丑腻峁补 1.2.42.
[5]:
Taber 1989:149.
[6]:
Ibid, 145.
[8]:
[9]:
This section is based on 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补鈥檚 罢补苍迟谤补-痴腻谤迟迟颈办补 on 艢补产补谤补鈥檚 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻-厂奴迟谤补-叠丑腻峁补 on 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻-厂奴迟谤补 attributed to Jaimini 1.2.7
[10]:
[11]:
The fourth part of the Veda, 狈腻尘补诲丑别测补 or names, refers to texts which give references to particular sacrifices through their names, and seems to have been posited as a category just to avoid double injunctions. See Jha 1964:182-6.
[12]:
For a reliable study of 补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补 in 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻, see Harikai 1994. For a short overview, see Jha 1907:xxxv; for a longer overview, Jha 1964:177-182.
[13]:
1991:150.
[14]:
2005:38.
[15]:
Ibid., p.63.
[16]:
1992:34.
[17]:
etena kratvartha-办补谤迟峁�-辫谤补迟颈辫腻诲补苍补-dv膩re峁噊pani峁d膩峁� nair膩k膩峁卥峁a峁� vy膩khy膩tam. 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补鈥檚 罢补苍迟谤补-痴腻谤迟迟颈办补 on 艢补产补谤补鈥檚 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻-厂奴迟谤补-叠丑腻峁补 1.2.7, I.114.
[18]:
碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补鈥檚 艢loka-痴腻谤迟迟颈办补 膧迟尘补惫腻诲补 141, 148.
[19]:
y膩艣 cait膩岣� 辫谤补诲丑腻苍补-辫耻谤耻峁艣惫补谤补-辫补谤补尘腻峁嘘-办腻谤补峁嚹乨颈-辫谤补办谤颈测腻岣� 蝉峁涐梗峁璱-pralay膩di-r奴pe峁嘺 prat墨t膩s t膩岣� 蝉补谤惫腻 mantr膩rthav膩da-j帽膩n膩d eva. 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补鈥檚 罢补苍迟谤补-痴腻谤迟迟颈办补 on 艢补产补谤补鈥檚 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻-厂奴迟谤补-叠丑腻峁补 1.3.2, I.168.
[20]:
sarvatra hi tad-balena pravartate, tad-uparame coparamat墨ti vi箩帽腻苍补-尘腻迟谤补-办峁峁嘺-产丑补峁単补-nair膩tmy膩di-v膩d膩n膩m apy upani峁d-补谤迟丑补惫腻诲补-prabhavatva峁� vi峁ye峁 腻迟测补苍迟颈办补峁� 谤腻驳补峁� nivartayitum ity 耻辫补辫补苍苍补峁� sarve峁Ｄ佱箖 pr膩m膩峁噛am. Ibid.
[21]:
[22]:
Aklujkar 1991.
[23]:
1983:363.