Chapter 4.4 - Divisions of Subsidiary Actions and Subsidiary Matters

The viniyogavidhi helped by these six proofs make subsidiaries subservient to another rites. The form of this applicatory injunction is like this:

‘One should perform new-moon and full-moon sacrifices by helping them by means of fuel-sacrifices (samidh-sacrifices) and others.’

Now, the subsidiaries expressed by the applicatory injunctions are of two kinds, i.e. of the form of accomplished things and of the form of actions. Of these the accomplished subsidiaries are generality, substance, number, gender and time etc. These have only a visible purpose.

One can argue that there is a rule—

‘sarve dravyavidhayo niyamavidhayaḥ’

(All injunctions relating to substances are restrictive injunctions)

And all restrictive injunctions are for producing some invisible results. So, the state of being made of the palāśa-wood, meant for ladle, is intended to produce invisible result. Similarly, the enjoining of paddy for a sacrifice is understood to produce invisible result.

But the siddhāntin says that invisible result is not produced by the state of being made of the palāśa-wood (parṇatā) or by paddy; but it is produced by the ladle made of the palāśa-wood or by the sacrifice performed by the paddy. From this point of view, it is proved that generality, substance, number etc. are capable of producing some visible results.

The subsidiaries that are of the form of action are of two kinds viz. secondary actions and primary actions. The secondary actions (guṇakarmāni) are called sannipatya-upakārakāṇi (helping the sacrifice through substances etc.) and the primary actions (pradhānakarmāṇi) are named as ārād upakārakāṇi (helping the general result of the sacrifice).

Sannipatya-upakāraka Aṅgas

The actions, which is enjoined with reference to a substance subservient to some sacrificial rite, is called ‘sannipatya-upakāraka aṅga’ or indirectly-helping subsidiary. For examples, threshing of the rice-grains, sprinkling, deities like the Fire, acts like recitation from memory of sacrificial (yājyā) and preliminary (anuvākyā) hymns relating to them etc. All of these actions produce different results. Rice etc., being transformed into dough, produce cakes, and through them these make the body of the sacrifice and the invisible result producing from it. A transcendental quality (apūrva) is imparted to the rice by sprinkling. Threshing creates visible results, such as removal of the husk. The sacrificial and preliminary hymns are used in the sacrifice for the purification of the deities and for producing the initial unique result accruing from the sacrifice, through that purification. The deities generate that result directly. Actually, a sacrifice is nothing but the dedication of materials to some deity.

This indirectly-helping subsidiary has either a visible purpose, or an invisible purpose or both a visible and invisible purpose. There, threshing of the rice-grains is for producing some visible result i.e. husking; sprinkling is done for the invisible result i.e., purification; and the animal, the sacrificial cake and others have both a visible and invisible purpose. For, they constitute the body of the sacrifice by presentation (tyāgaḥ) of the substance. It produces an invisible result. Simultaneously, they produce a visible result i.e. the recollection of the deity. These componently helpful subsidiaries are called inherent constituents (sāmavāyikāni) or dependent actions (āśrayikarmāṇi).

Ārād-upakāraka Aṅgas

The subsidiaries generating unique results remaining in the soul are called directly helpful. These generate merit or demerit (righteousness or unrighteousness) in the soul of the sacrificer. It should be mentioned here that this definition differs entirely from that given in the ‘Artha-saṃgraha’ and the ‘Mīmāṃsānyāyaprakāśa’ (Āpodevī), where these have been defined as rites contributing to the final unique result of the principal sacrifice. The author of ‘Mīmāṃsānyāyaprakāśa’ Kṛṣṇa Yajvan has given the reason for why these are called ārād-upakārakas. These do not cause any purification either in the materials or in the deities, but produce unique results in the soul of the sacrificer. Hence they are called directly helpful. For example, sacarifies like prayāja, ājyabhāga and anūyāja etc.

Rites are generally of two kinds, viz., principal rites (artha-karman) and subsidiary rites (guṇa-karman), Principal rites generate unique results in the soul, for instances, the Agnihotra, the new moon and full-moon sacrifices, the prayāja etc.

Subsidiary rites cause purification. They are twofold, viz., those that purify what has been used, and those that purify what is to be used. Of these, the former rites are named rites of disposal (pratipatti-karman). The definition of disposal is the removal to an appointed place of a material that has been used. It also includes the eradication of the acts which are impediments to sacrifice. For example, eating the remnant of the cake, throwing the black entelope’s horn, the homa of quadruple oblation etc. The opponent may put an objection: Eating the remnant of the cake can be regarded as an act of disposal, for it consists in the removal of a material which has been used in the principal sacrifice and it acts as an impediment. But how can homa (offering in the fire) be counted as disposal, since it does not cause purification of something that has been utilized in a sacrifice? Because homa takes place at the time of sacrifice. So, the quadruple oblation as a part of homa can not be regarded as having been used.

The siddhāntin says that disposal means purification of the object what has been used, not of what has been used in the principal sacrifice. If it is accepted that disposal means purification of what has been used in the principal sacrifice, then, the removal of blood and excreta after the killing of the animal, would not be considered as disposal; because the blood and excreta had not been used in the principal sacrifice. Similarly, the throwing of black antelope’s horn used in the subsidiary rites, would not also be regarded as disposal. Because it has no direct connection with sacrifice. The horn was used for scratching only. So, here mere use is meant. This kind of use is also perceived in the removal of blood and excreta of the animal that has been used by taking out its omentum, heart etc. So, that blood and excreta act as impediment and require the act of disposal.

This act of disposal are of three kinds, viz., subsequent to the principal sacrifice, concurrent with it and antecedent to it. The eating of the remnant of the cake goes to the first kind. Homa is an example of the second kind. Now this is explained below.

In the section of the new and full-moon sacrifices there are four special special sentences. These are—

1. “sakṛd upastṛṇāti ” (One should smear [the homa vessel] with ghee once.);
2. “dvir haviṣo’vadyati ” (He should cut a slice off the oblation twice.);
3. “sakṛd abhi ghārayati ” (He should pour ghee on it once.) and
4. “caturavattaṃ juhoti ” (He should offer the quadruple oblation.).

Here homa is not restated, for it is not already known. So, the material of the quadruple oblation is not laid down as a restatement of homa as being its accessory.

It can not be said that from the sentence ‘yad āgneyo’ṣṭākapālo’mā-vāsyāyāñ ca paurṇamāsyāñ cācyūto bhavati ” (Because [the cake] related to the Fire, baked on eight thin tiles, is undecaying on the new-moon and the full-moon day) the homa is already known. Because that sentence enjoins a sacrifice (yāga), and it does not lays down a homa. We should keep it in our mind that a sacrifice and homa are not identical. Because ‘sacrifice’ means the dedication of something to deity; but ‘homa’ means a sacrifice qualified by or attended with offering in the fire. So, the āgneyacodanā sentence (as stated above) expresses only sacrifice and it does not denote oblation. But with reference to the ‘caturavatta homa’ (quadruple oblation), expressed by the sentence inculcating smearing etc., offering has been enjoined as a purificatory act of it by the verb ‘juhoti ’ (should offer). This purification is an act of disposal. Because if the cake needs disposal then the act of offering relating to a part of the cake sliced off twice can easily be regarded as disposal.

This purification occurs as the same time of the principal sacrifice. So, it is concurrent with the principal sacrifice. Because homa is performed by the priest called ‘adhvaryu’ at the next moment of the utterance of the word ‘vauṣat’. There is an injunction regarding this: “vauṣaṭ kṛte juhoti ” (One should perform homa when the word ‘vauṣat’ is uttered). The sacrifice also becomes complete after the performance of the homa. So, the sacrifice and homa—both become simultaneous.

By this discussion it is established that homa is an act of disposal and it is concurrent with the principal sacrifice.

The picking out of the (sacrificed animal’s) excreta and the removal of the blood are examples of the disposal antecedent to the principal sacrifice. These have been enjoined by the sentences, “śakṛt saṃpra-vidhyati ” (One should pick out the excreta.) and, “lohitaṃ nirasyati ” (One should remove the blood).

There are also many varieties of the purification of what is to be used in a sacrifice, viz, purification of what has been directly prescribed as a subsidiary to some rite, that of something beneficial to what has been laid down directly, and purification of what is going to be prescribed. The purification of rice-grains by threshing prescribed by the sentence, “vrīhīn avahanti ” (One should thresh the rice-grains) is the example of the first kind. The touching of the calf as prescribed by the injunction, “vatsam ālabheta” (One should touch the calf) goes to the second kind of purification. Because calf is helpful to the material cow which has directly been prescribed as a subsidiary to milking. The example of the third kind of purification is the mixing of curd with milk as prescribed by the sentence. “tapte payasi dadhyānayati” (One should mix curd with milk when it [milk] has been heated); because that milk mixed with curd is going to be prescribed by the sentence, “sā vaiśvadevyāmikṣā” (That is the fresh cheese relating to the Viśvadevas). That milk is prescribed as a subsidiary to the sacrifice relating to the Viśvadevas, as referred to by the word ‘that’ in “sa.”.

There are some subsidiaries which have many characteristics. For example, the sacrifice with cakes in an animal sacrifice is done for the purification of the deities who have taken their part in the sacrifice and are still to do so. It also generates the invisible result in respect of dedication. The deities of this sacrifice i.e., the Fire and the Moon have played their part in the sacrifice with omentum and they wait for taking part in the subsidiary sacrifice with heart and others. The sacrifice called Sviṣṭakṛt is for the purification of what has been used in respect of materials and deities and it is done to produce the invisible merit in respect of dedication. Similarly, there is an oblation called Praharaṇa in the section of the new-moon and full-moon sacrifices, prescribed by the injunction, “one should offer the sheaf of kuśa grass to the utterance of the Sūktavāka hymns.” The deities of this homa are those already invoked in the main sacrifice and the sheaf of kuśa grass had already been used by pouring ghee upon it. So, the homa purifies the deities and materials both. The final prayāja is done to purify the deities. So, it is an act of purification of what is to be used. But in respect of dedication it creates the unique result. The homa with fat (vasāhoma) which is done before the sacrifice with oblations such as the animal’s heart, is counted as an act of disposal in respect of fat. Because fat is used in that homa as a remnant material. In respect of dedication this homa is for creating the unique result.

Some give a different definition of disposal. They say that the rite of disposal is any rite of purification other than the act of purifying of what is to be used. Because the burnt material of the quadruple oblation can no longer be used in any other oblation. This homa (caturavatta) is other than what is to be used. So, the definition applies here.

It should be remembered that in a principal rite, the rite gets more importance than the materials used in it and the materials are regarded as accessory. For example, curd etc. are accessory in the Agnihotra sacrifice. But in a subsidiary rite materials are important than rites, and the rites become accessory to materials. For example, in the injunctions like “one should sprinkle the rice-grains” and “one should thresh the rice-grains”, since it is understood that rice-grains are accomplished by some action, so rice-grains are more important than action, while the act of sprinkling is subsidiary to rice-grains. Here the accomplishment of rice-grains means making rice-grains fit to be used in sacrifice by consecration.

All subsidiary rites are again classified in four groups from a different point of view. They are origination (utpatti), attainment (āpti), modification (vikṛti) and consecration (saṃskṛti). An example of origination is, “agnīn ādadhīta” (One should place the fire); because the āhavanīya fires and other fires are originated by being placed on a stack of fuel with the chanting of sacred hymns. Here the placing of fire leads to the origination of fire. So this purification is called the purification of origination.

An example of the purification of attainment is,

“svādhyāyo’dhyetavyāḥ”

(One’s own Veda should be studied by him.)

A person gets the Veda of his own school through study; so it is a purification of attainment.

An example of modification is the injunction,

“vrīhīn ava hanti ”

(He should thresh the rice-gains).

Here threshing is considered as purification of modification because threshing leads to husking of the paddy and this husking brings change in the paddy.

An example of the purification of consecration is the injunction,

“vrīhīn prokṣati ”

(He should sprinkle the rice-grains).

Here sprinkling creates an added virtue in the rice-grains and it is a subsidiary rite of the nature of consecration.

Among these subsidiary functions, the placing of the fire and study are independent rites. These are not acessories to the sacrifice; but others i.e., sprinkling etc. are accessories to the sacrifice.

Upto this, the subsidiary rites have been discussed. Now, the principal rites (arthakarmāṇi) are being discussed. Since an injunction of application presents the relation between the principal and subsidiary rites, so the discussion on principal rites is as important as the discussion on the subsidiary rites. Discussion of these both rites gives a complete idea.

Principal Rites

The definition of principal rite has been given before. Its varieties are now being discussed. Principal rites are three fold, viz., regular (nitya), occasional (naimittika) and optional (kāmya) rites. The Agnihotra sacrifice comes under the regular rites. Because there is an injunction in the Veda, “yāvajjīvam agnihotraṃ juhoti ” (He should offer the Agnihotra for life). Likewise, oblations in the evening and in the morning are also regular activities. The Veda says, “sāyaṃ juhoti ” (He should perform homa in the evening) and “prātar juhoti ” (He should perform homa in the morning.). The Agnihotra and oblations are performed every morning and evening unfailingly by a person as long as he lives. The example of the occasional rite is the Pathikṛt iṣṭi performed at the proper time because of the non-performance of the new and full-moon sacrifices. The vedic injunction regarding this iṣṭi is, “agnaye pathikṛte puroḍāśam aṣṭākapālaṃ nirvapet ” (He should set apart a cake baked on eight thin tiles for the Fire called Pathikṛt [maker of the way]. (Taittirīya-saṃhitā II. ii. I).

If these regular and occasional actions are not performed, then there will be sin; but their performance does not create any result—this is the view of some philosophers. But some others say that these two kinds of rites lead to the destruction of demerits. They produce the sentence for their support—

“nityanaimittikair eva kurvāṇo duritakṣayam”

(Destroying demerit by means of the regular and occasional rites alone...).

But these rites are not optional rites. Because these are not performed with the desire of getting result. Also, there is no mention of that person who desires results in the injunctions prescribing these two kinds of rites.

Optional rites are threehold, viz., those producing results only in this life, those producing results in a future or next life, and those producing results both here and hereafter. The example of the first kind of optional rites is the Kārīrī iṣṭi. This sacrifice is performed by the person who wants rain for rejuvenating the drying crops at a certain time, and it is not performed by one who desires rain at some future time or in his future birth.

The example of the second kind of optional rites is the new-and full-moon sacrifices for attaining heaven. Heaven is not enjoyed in this life. The example of the third kind of optional rites is the function resulting prosperity etc. as illustrated by the injunction,

“vāyavyaṃ śvetam ālabheta bhūtikāmaḥ”

(One desiring prosperity should touch the white animal [a goat] related to the deity Wind.)
     (Taittirīya-saṃhitā II. I. i. I).

Here a question arises. The Veda tells about some rites such as the new-and full-moon sacrifices and materials like rice. These are mundane and visible. So, how does the Veda enlighten about supernatural and spiritual matters?

The answer is that though actions or rites are visible, their state of being the cause of heaven etc. is invisible. So, the Veda expressing those rites is also enlightens about supernatural matters. Likewise, the state of being the means of sacrificial rites of rices etc. can not be established by perception. Therefore vedic sentences inculcating these materials also enlighten about supernatural matters. Hence the objection put by the opponent does not stand.