Niyama-vidhi is that where when a thing could have been done in a number of ways, an order is made by the Veda which restricts us to following some definite alternative (e.g. though the chaff from the corn could be separated even by the nails, the order that “corn should be threshed” restricts us to the alternative of threshing as the only course acceptable for the sacrifice).  In the niyama-vidhi that which is ordered is already known as possible but only as an alternative, and the vidhi insists upon one of these methods as the only one.  In apurva-vidhi the thing to be done would have remained undone and unknown had it not been for the vidhi.  In parisa@nkhya-vidhi all that is enjoined is already known but not necessarily as possible alternatives.  A certain mantra “I take up the rein” (imam ag@rbhna@m ras’ana@m) which could be used in a number of cases should not however be used at the time of holding the reins of an ass.

There are three main principles of interpreting the Vedic sentences. (1) When some sentences are such that connectively they yield a meaning but not individually, then they should be

405

taken together connectively as a whole. (2) If the separate sentences can however yield meanings separately by themselves they should not be connected together. (3) In the case of certain sentences which are incomplete suitable words from the context of immediately preceding sentences are to be supplied.

The vidhis properly interpreted are the main source of dharma.  The mantras which are generally hymns in praise of some deities or powers are to be taken as being for the specification of the deity to whom the libation is to be offered.  It should be remembered that as dharma can only be acquired by following the injunctions of the Vedas they should all be interpreted as giving us injunctions.  Anything therefore found in the Vedas which cannot be connected with the injunctive orders as forming part of them is to be regarded as untrustworthy or at best inexpressive.  Thus it is that those sentences in the Vedas which describe existing things merely or praise some deed of injunction (called the arthavadas) should be interpreted as forming part of a vidhi-vakya (injunction) or be rejected altogether.  Even those expressions which give reasons for the performance of certain actions are to be treated as mere arthavadas and interpreted as praising injunctions.  For Vedas have value only as mandates by the performance of which dharma may be acquired.

When a sacrifice is performed according to the injunctions of the Vedas, a capacity which did not exist before and whose existence is proved by the authority of the scriptures is generated either in the action or in the agent.  This capacity or positive force called apurva produces in time the beneficent results of the sacrifice (e.g. leads the performer to Heaven).  This apurva is like a potency or faculty in the agent which abides in him until the desired results follow [Footnote ref 1].