Purva Mimamsa arguments for establishing the existence (and function) of Apurva.

The source text is Sri Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit Ganganath Jhas book titled The Purva
Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini in which Sri Jha has presented, apart from the sutras, a
summary of the views of both the Prabhakara and Bhatta schools.

PURVA MIMAMSA ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF APURVA

Jaimini Sutra. 2.1.4: Such words, on the other hand, on whose utterance the objects denoted by
them are not found to be present at the time, are verbs; therefore, it is by means of these that the
Apurva should be cognized; specially as what is significant by such words is dependent (upon
other factors).

BHASHYA:

In the sentence somena yajeta the verb yajeta denotes something which is yet to be accomplished.
Hence it requires the mention of such factors as the means of accomplishing it, the purpose served by
its accomplishment and the process by which the accomplishment is brought about, and so forth. Thus
as the Apurva is one of these factors, it is naturally more closely connected with the verb than with the
noun.

Jaimini Sutra .2.1.5: And Apurva exists because of the Injunctions (of actions).

BHASHYA:

PRABHAKARA SCHOOL VIEWPOINT

Inasmuch as sacrifices have been laid down for the purpose of certain definite results, to follow after
the lapse of long duration of time such deferred fruition of the action would not be possible unless
there was an intervening agency of the Apurva. That is to say, the apparent inconsistency of the
relationship of the sacrifices and such results as the attainment of heaven, etc., laid down in the Veda, points to the fact that the existence of the Apurva also is laid down in the Veda itself; and as such it is
quite authoritative.

Objection: The injunction imparted by the injunctive word only urges the agent to the performance of the
action, and not towards anything desired by him; the action is something ephemeral, and is not present
immediately before the attainment of heaven by the agent; hence in order to meet these difficulties we
must accept the sacrifice itself to be everlasting or that there is a certain faculty in the agent and
there is no reason for assuming any such thing as Apurva.

Reply: At the outset you commit a mistake in assuming that the injunction prompts the agent to action;
what the injunction really does is to prompt him to exertion; and the particular action denoted by the root
is only the object of that exertion. Thus then, what is denoted by the injunctive sentence is the niyoga
(decree or mandate); this mandate urges the man to exertion; and this exertion pertains to some sort
of action (denoted by the verb). The assumption that the action itself is everlasting is against all
evidence.

Moreover, the assumption that the injunctive sentence brings about a certain faculty in the agent is
unsustainable because the self is, by its very omnipresence, inactive (akarta); hence what brings about
the final result cannot abide in the self.. That the sacrifice produces such a faculty in the agent is not
proved either by Perception or by Inference or by Verbal Authority there being no Vedic texts pointing
to any such faculty; specially as we find that the action is brought about by the exertion of the agent; and
therefore the causal potency must reside in this exertion which exertion therefore should be denoted
by the injunctive sentence.

Objection: The result may be brought about by the favors of the deity.

Reply: No, the sacrifice cannot be held to be laid down for the purpose of obtaining the favor of the deity
as there is no evidence in support of this. As a matter of fact, sacrifices are never performed for that

purpose; (the purpose is the result of the sacrifice stated and) the deity is only one to whom the sacrifice
is made. Also, we could please a deity by only such acts as could reach it, and that is not possible as
the deity is not eternal and omnipresent and cannot get at all the offerings made by different men at all
times.

KUMARILA BHATTA SCHOOL VIEWPOINT

The exertion produced by the injunctive sentence is called Niyoga in the Prabhakara school and Apurva
in the Bhatta school (i.e, of Kumarilla Bhatta). Prabhakara does not favor the view that Niyoga is a
faculty produced in the agent by the performance of the action whereas Kumarila Bhatta seems to
accept it inasmuch as Apurva, according to the Bhatta school, is a capability produced in the agent.
Prabhakara says that the action cannot produce such a faculty in the agent on account of the self being
inactive, but when the word agent is used it does not refer to the action-less self but to the self with the
upadhi of agency and hence the denial of the production of a faculty in the agent on the ground of the
self being action-less is entirely superfluous. In other words, the Niyoga of Prabhakara translates to the
Apurva of Kumarila Bhatta.

According to Kumarila Bhatta, the Apurva is a capability in the principal action, or in the agent, which
did not exist prior to the performance of the action, and whose existence is proved by the authority of
the scriptures. Before the sacrifices that are laid down as leading to heaven are performed, there is in
the sacrifices themselves, in the first place, an incapability of leading to heaven, and in the second
place, in the agent, that of attaining to heaven. Both these incapacities are set aside by the
performance of the sacrifice; and this performance creates a positive force or capacity, by virtue if which
heaven is attained; and to the latter force or capacity we give the name Apurva. The proof of the
existence of such an Apurva lies in arthapatti based upon the fact that without some such force many
Vedic passages are wholly inexplicable... Apurva then is nothing more than a force set in motion by
the performance of the action, - this force being the direct instrument whereby, sooner or later, the action
accomplishes its result.

The whole matter of what Bhatta calls Apurva and Prabhakara Niyoga is explained in the following
manner in the Prakaranapanchika:

1.
The second aphorism of Adhyaya I has shown that what the injunctive statement denotes
is karya, something to be brought about.
2.
In the beginning of Adhyaya IV, it has been shown that, of this karya denoted by the
sentence, the niyoga i.e., theperson prompted to its bringing about is one who is desirous of
acquiring for himself some desirable result in the shape of heaven and the like, - this being
related to the karya.
3.
In the Badaryadhikarana (III.1.3) it has been proved that it is the karya that is the direct
cause of the production of that desirable result which is desired by (and as such qualifies)
the prompted person.
4.
In the Devatadhikarana (Su.IX.1.9) the bhashya has shown that this karya cannot be the
act (of sacrificing, for instance); as this act cannot possibly be the direct cause of the final result
(on account of it being far removed from it in time); nor could it be held to lead to the result
through the favor of a deity to whom the sacrifice is offered; nor can it be regarded as leading to
the result through a certain pre-existing potency in the agent; and it is well known that either the
act itself, or any potency abiding in itself, does not last long enough to bring about the result.
5.
In the Apurvadhikarana (II.1.5) we have the final conclusions led up to by all the above
adhikaranas: That which is denoted by the injunctive affix and other factors of the injunction is the
karya inhering in the agent who is prompted by the sentence, and as connected with whom the
karya is indicated; as this karya is not cognizable by any other means of knowledge, it has been
called Apurva, something new, not known before.

THE GENERATION OF APURVAS IN A SACRIFICE

In all simple sacrifices, there is a single Apurva leading to a single result. But there are certain elaborate
sacrifices which are highly complex, being made up of a number of subsidiary sacrifices; such as for
instance, as the Dasapaurnamasa sacrifices. In all such sacrifices there are, as a rule, four kinds of
Apurvas generated and they lead to the final Phalapurva. and each of the group of sacrifices is
made up a number of minor acts, each of which is its turn, must have a distinct Apurva of its own; as
otherwise the act could not help in the final Phalapurva.

MENTION OF APURVA BEING UNSEEN AND TRANSCENDENTAL

The purpose served by this Adhikarana has been explained in the Tantravartika (Kumarilla
bhashya):- If the result were directly connected, not by an (unperceived) transcendental apurva but, to
the material offered into the fire and such other visible accessories of the sacrifices, then there would be
transcendental results following from each of these factors. And thus in the case of any particular
material being lost, or otherwise rendered useless, during the performance of the sacrifice, it would be
absolutely impossible to finish the sacrifice with a substitute. However, the result being related to the
action, the use of the material would be merely a visible one; and as such its place could very well be
taken by its substitute, which is equally capable of fulfilling the purpose, ( i.e., generating the Apurva that
accomplishes the result).