Karma Mimansa

Author(s): Berriedale Keith
Publisher: Berriedale Keith

Page 99

90
THE KARMA-MIMÄMSÄ
syntactical connection is of value; thus, in one passage (S B. IV, 4, 6, 16-18) we are able to decide that Rc and Yajus mean the Rgveda and the Yajurveda, and not, as might else be thought, metrical and prose Mantras, because of the syntactical connection with the immediately preceding words. Fourthly, context (Prakaranu) is of great importance; we have the general injunction that one should perform the new and full moon sacrifices, and the injunction to offer to Tanūnapāt; this principle enables us to "ind a purpose for the latter offering in connection with the former sacrifices; mere syntactical connection would not here help, as the sentences stand apart and are in themselves quite complete. Fifthly, order (krama) or position (sthāna) is of service; thus in one passage (T.S. I, 6, 2, 4) occur three Mantras without indication of use; we can, however, by finding that elsewhere three offerings are enjoined in connection with these Mantras, assume that the order of the sacrifices and the Mantras is to correspond, one being used with each offering in order. Finally, names (samākhyā) may supply information else wanting: thus Mantras, not otherwise identified, by being styled Hautra are known to fall within the sphere of the Hotr priest. Each of these means for adequate reasons is deemed to be of more value than the preceding, and in working out the principle in detail the Mimāmsā shows both skill and acumen, even when we admit that in many cases its reasonings were guided by the fact that a certain usage had become regular, and therefore that the sound conclusion was already given by customary practice.
While these injunctions of application determine the exact mode in which the ceremonies prescribed in the originating injunctions are to be performed, the order of the actions is prescribed by injunctions of performance (viniyogavidhi). On this point, however, there is a difference of view between Prabhākara and Kumārila (V, 1); the latter admits readily the existence of injunctions determining the order of perforinance by the process of extracting such directions from injunctions of application. Prabhākara, however, insists that an injunction of application cannot be deemed to deal with order, which is a matter of indifference,