Chapter 6 - Prayogavidhi (Introduction)

The injunction concerning a principal rite forms a unitary passage with the injunctions regarding subsidiary rites and it becomes a great sentence (mahāvākya). It enjoins the performance of the main rite comprising all its subsidiary rites. So, it is called an injunction regarding performance (prayogavidhi). This Prayogavidhi [prayoga-vidhi] implies the fastness of application, indicating the subsidiary works. It makes a complete sense with the main injunction. At the same time, it shows the chronological series of the auxiliary works. It can be said that ‘A’ is done with ‘B’ only when they are performed maintaining a specific order. Otherwise, there must be doubt which should be done after a specific rite.

We know very well that the main sacrifice is enjoined by the pradhānavidhi or utpattividhi. The auxiliaries are laid down by the guṇavidhi and the sacrificer or the agent of the sacrifice is enjoined by the adhikāravidhi. But when the pradhānavidhi, in association with other vidhis constitutes one single unit, it is designated as prayogavidhi, because it results in enjoining the whole programme of the sacrifice. It conveys that all rites connected with a sacrifice should be performed in their respective order without any interruption or delay. So, prayogavidhi is nothing but a utpattividhi with all its guṇaphalavidhis. Prayogavidhi is expressed by a long sentence. If all aṅgavidhis are connected with the pradhānavidhi, it becomes a prayogavidhi. But we can not get in the Veda such kind of sentence which expresses prayogavidhi. So, it is formed or constructed by logical imagination.

The main objective of a prayogavidhi is to inform the mode of action. If it is said that a wood should be cut into two pieces with an axe, then there must arise the essential question:——how should the axe be driven? The answer is by driving it upwards and downwards with a reasonable and effective power. Then only the piece of wood would be divided. So also is the case of a sacrifice. A sacrifice can be completed by maintaining some fixed procedure or mode of action.

This can be illustrated in this following injunction,

“agnihotraṃ juhuyāt svargakāmaḥ”

(One who desires heaven should offer the Agnihotra.)

The simple meaning of this injunction is: One should bring about heaven through the homa called Agnihotra. But when one understands a prayogavidhi out of this injunction, then he includes the meaning of the other injunctions expressing the subsidiary rites related to the main Agnihotra sacrifice.

The subsidiary rites are laid down by the injunctions,

“agniṃ praṇayati ”

(One should lead the fire),

“agniṣu samidha ādadhāti ”

(One should add fuel to the fire).

So, the form of prayogavidhi of “agnihotraṃ juhuyāt svargakāmaḥ” will be ‘One should bring about heaven through the homa called Agnihotra, with the help provided by the congregation of subsidiary rites such as leading the fire, laying the fuel and purifying the altar etc.’ This is the structure of the injunction about performance. This hypothetical sentence will be considered as a prayogavidhi. This injunction is invented as a long sentence out of this special context mentioned above. The auxiliary rites taken together are also designated as the manner or modus operandi.

Here a question arises. Rites are transitory. They perish very quickly. They can not produce the result heaven etc. which are to be realised at some future time. Then, why rites are regarded as the causes of results?

The answer of this objection is that a unique result (apūrva) is accepted in the interim for the justification of the state of being the means of result of the actions, prescribed or prohibited. This apūrva consists of merit and demerit. Through this unique result a sacrifice becomes the means of heaven etc. This unique result resides in the soul of the sacrifice after the right performance of the sacrifice. The sacrifice does not produced any result directly. This unique result produced from the sacrifice is called the final unique result (phalāpūrva). The main sacrifice with its previous and subsequent rites becomes the means of the result; not the mere principal sacrifice. If the principal rite alone produces the final unique result, the result of the sacrifice (heaven etc.) also will accrue from the final unique result produced out of the principal rite alone, and because of that reason the subsidiary functions will be redundant.

Another question arises here. The rites are transitory. They do not have togetherness. So, the principal rite can never combine with its subsidiaries. So, the principal rite with its subsidiaries can not produce the unique result.

The answer of this objection is that although the principal rite does not directly join with its subservient rites, yet it can combine with them through the initial unique result (utpattyapūrva). For the justification of togetherness of the principal rite with its all subsidiaries, a special unique result called the initial unique result (utpattyapūrva) is accepted between the principal rite and the final unique result. Thus, the combination of the subsidiary rites is to be understood. It is true that they can not mutually combine by themselves. But through their respective initial unique result they can combine with each other. It can not be said that they can not combine, for their aim is the same i.e., to help the principal rite. Not only that, individually they can not help it, but when combined together, they possess the ability of helping the principal rite. So, their combination through their respective initial unique result is possible, necessary and effective. It can not be denied. The helping of the principal rite by the subsidiary rites means ‘stimulating the capacity of the principal rite to produce the final unique result.’