We earlier said about Ekavakyata, and its two types Padaikyavakyata amd Vakyaikyavakyata. People often mistake, even without knowing about ekavakyata, during decoding the Vedic statements. So, understanding this is of great importance.
Pada-eka-vakyata – when the whole statement is boiled down to a word, and if that word to fulfill the expectation of another statement is brought in sync with it, it is called padaikyavakyata. In the statements of Arthavada in the form of praising, the derivation is for praise. In the case of “he cried” in the form of condemning, the derivation is for condemning. Since the words in the Arthavada statements are accepted to be implying the praise etc, when through that one word itself there is a possibility of knowledge, the other words will be useless. Similarly, the knowledge of form of praise as expected by the injunction, the whole of the Arthavada statement is condensed in a single word, there is a synchronization of the word (of the form of praise or condemn) with the injunction. Thus, the Arthavada statements are in synchronization of the word (Padaikavakyata).
Arthavada-vakya – The statements in the scriptures, which have no use directly in the sacrifice, but helps in praising the act or denouncing the act, is called Arthavada.
The statement “the prajapati tore open his own stomach” has no eligibility (yogyata) therefore was understood to be a statement in praising of the sacrificial animal.
The statement “he cried”, is a statement which says the story of Rudra, he cried therefore he is called rudra. Now this has no relation to the sacrifice. Therefore, the statement is connected with the injunction “barhishi rajatam na deyam” (should not give silver in the sacrifice of barhi). This is because, the teardrops of rudra became silver, and therefore, the silver is negated as the gift in the barhi sacrifice.
Vakya-eka-vakyata – If two statements reciprocally fulfill the expectation and come in sync it is called Vakyaikyavakyata. Wherever, with the two statements which have different connection to different meanings due to the expectancy, gives sensible meaning as a unified statement. For example, in the statements “let one who desires heaven perform darsha-purnamasa sacrifice” etc and “he performs sacrifice with samid (twigs)” etc, each have an expectancy of the part and the whole (the subsidiary and the main), fulfill by being a unified statement. This is said by the Bhataapada, “The statements which give a complete meaning by itself, when come together to fulfill the expectancy of the part and whole is called vakyaikavakya”. Thus, the two types of word meanings (literal (expressed) and derived (implied)) are explained.
Mahavakya – normally translated as ultimate sentence (some translate it as great sentence). Here in this place is translated as unified statement, because, with respect to Vedanta, Mahavakya means “akhandartha bodhaka vakhyam” (the statement which gives the non-dual identity between the individual self (jiva) and the Self (Brahman)). Here, they come together because of some expectancy of the part or of the whole.
Avantaravakhyam – the statement which deals with a single aspect of the discussion. In Vedanta, the statements which discuss only about the jiva, jagat or the Brahman is called avantaravakhyam
Anga and Angi – The statement which is the primary injunction gives the knowledge of the sacrifice to be performed. This statement is construed as a Bhavana by the purva-mimamsa. A Bhavana is a desire which takes place for the eligible (bhavitu bhavana-anukula bhavayitu vyapara). And this bhavana is of three parts 1. Kim Bhavayet (what should be desired), 2. Kena Bhavayet (through what should it be desired) and 3. Katham Bhavayet (how should it be desired). The first bhavana is taken care of by the statement by saying, “desire heaven”. The same statement gives the knowledge of the second also, by saying “through the darsha-purnamasa sacrifice” and the third is taken care by the auxiliary statement “through the twigs”.
“samidho yajati” is one of the five subsidiary sacrifices the others are “ido yajati”, “barhir yajati”, tanunapatam yajati” and “svahakaram yajati”.
Smart Mauni Says “I failed in math because the Teacher was ‘jealous’ of my knowledge that I knew more than him. Sample this: in one book the formulae was (x + y)2 = x2 + y2 + 2xy and in the other it was (a + b)2 = a2 + b2 + 2ab. When asked the value of (x + y)2, I wrote, because I know ekavakyata, x2 + y2 + 2ab.”