Chapter 4 - Viniyogavidhi (Introduction)

The injunction which designates the relation between the auxiliary part and the principal part of a sacrifice is called Viniyogovidhi [viniyogo-vidhi].

For example,

‘dadhnā juhoti’

(He should sacrifice with curd).

Here the subordinateness of curd is presented by the third case ending and the meaning of the verb ‘hu’ is ‘to sacrifice’. This sacrifice is here the desirable work for the sacrificer. In utpattividhi the sacrificial rite that is laid down is construed as the instrument. But in viniyogavidhi the sacrificial rite is construed as sādhya or the thing to be accomplished. This kind of injunction conveys a subsidiary matter for a principal task. So, the sacrifice is here regarded as the sādhya and the material mentioned serves as the means. As a result of this, the verbal understanding of the injunction ‘dadhnā juhoti’ is ‘dadhnā homaṃ bhāvayet ’ (He should accomplish the act of offering oblation to gods with curd).

Sometimes in viniyogavidhi the meaning of root is associated with sacrifice as a resort or substratum.

For example,

‘dadhnedriyakāmasya juhuyāt’

(One desirous of strong senses should offer oblations with curd).

It means ‘dadhikaraṇatvena indriyaṃ bhāvayet’ (One should make his senses strong by the means of curd used in sacrifice). If it is asked that to which the instrumentality of curd is related, then the offering of oblation to fire will be related as the resort. Because this offering is heard in proximity of curd. So, the clear meaning of the injunction is, ‘One desirous of strong senses should make his senses strong by offering oblations qualified by curd.’ Here ‘homa’ (offering oblations to fire) is ‘uddeśya’ (the thing or activity to which something is prescribed) and ‘dadhiniṣṭhakaraṇatvam’ (the instrumentality related to curd) is ‘vidheya’ (the matter which is prescribed for another matter or activity). This ‘vidheya’ is related to bhāvanā as the ‘karaṇa’. So, the structure of the bhāvanā will be ‘dadhini-ṣṭhakarṇatvakarṇikā bhāvanā’ (the urge having the means of instrumentally related to curd).

In fact, where the result is not mentioned in the injunction of application or it is not heard from any adhikāravidhi by lakṣaṇā, there the root-meaning is related to bhāvanā as sādhya. For example, ‘dadhnā juhoti’. But the meaning of root is related to bhāvanā as a substratum where the result is enjoined directly or it is stated as the adjective of the adhikārin (the enjoyer of the result of sacrifice). For example, ‘dadhnendriyakāmasya juhuyāt.’ Here the result i.e. the strength of sense is heard.

A cause does not count for effect without the function of the agent and the homa is enjoined by another sentence i.e. ‘agnihotraṃ juhoti.’ So, both homa and curd can not be enjoined by an injunction. If curd is related to homa, then the result (vigorousness of organs) will be fruitless or useless. If the result is related to homa by any other method, then the word ‘dadhi’ (curd) will be meaningless. According to rule, if the materials, deities etc. are enjoined by another injunction, then the relation of the result and the principal sacrifice can not be enjoined by an injunction. In that case there will be the fallacy of spliting of sentence. But if those are not mentioned by any injunction then even many accessories are enjoined in one effort.

So, the great Kumārila Bhaṭṭa said in his Tantravārtika—

“prāpte karmaṇi nāneko vidhātuṃ śakyate guṇaḥ |
aprāte tu vidhīyante bahavo’pyekayatnataḥ ||”^[1]

Here the word ‘karman’ signifies substance, deity etc. and the word guṇa stands for the principal sacrifice. So, in the given example the instrumentality of curd has been enjoined by Veda to the urge (bhāvanā) of result determined by homa.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Tantravārtika—2.2.7