Manava Dharmashastra 2.189

2.189.1

ayamapavādo nimittaviśeṣe bhaikṣavṛttyupadeśasya | devadaivatye devoddeśena brāhmaṇabhojane kriyamāṇe, pitrye ca pitṝnuddiśyābhyarthito' dhyeṣitaḥ, kāmamekānnamaśnīyāt | na tu svayaṃ yāceta | tacca vratavad vratāviruddhaṃ madhumāṃsavarjitamityarthaḥ | vratavadṛṣivaditi ca śabdadvayenaika evārtha ucyate, na punarmmāraṇayayoḥ karmabhedena vyavasthā | vṛttānurodhāttu dvirabhidhānam | ṛṣivaikhānasastadaśanābhyanujñāne māṃsamapi brahmacāriṇo'nujñātaṃ syāt | tasya hi 'vaiṣṇavamapyupabhuñjīta' iti māṃsāśanamapyasti | devā devatā yasya tad devadaivatyam | taccāgnihotradarśapūrṇamāsādiṣu daiveṣu karmasu brāhmaṇabhojanamāmnātam, āgrahāyaṇyādiṣu cāmnātaṃ 'brāhmaṇānbhojayitvā svastyayanaṃ vācayediti' | tatreyamanujñā | anye tu sapramyādāvādityādidevoddeśena yatkriyate brāhmaṇabhojanaṃ taddevadaivatyaṃ manyante | tadasat | na hi bhujerdevatāsambandho'sti, ayāgasādhanatvāttasya | na taddeśyamātraṃ devatā | 'upādhyāya gāṃ dadāti', 'gṛhaṃ saṃmārṣṭītyu'pādhyāye gṛhe'pi prasaṅgāt | bhujerhi pratyakṣo bhoktṛā sambandhaḥ | ādityastu na kārakaṃ, na coddeśyo gṛhavat, na tadarthaṃ bhojanam | dvitīyā hi bhoktṛrthatāṃ, jñāpayati, nādityārthatām | na caitatkvacinnoditam 'ādityādyuddeśena brāhmaṇānbhojayediti' | “samācārādvidhiḥ kalpyata” iti cet ? na | tasyopalabhyamānamūlatvāt | “asti hi mūlaṃ, bāhyāḥ smṛtayaḥ |” tatra tarhi brāhmaṇabhojanena devatāḥ prīṇayediti śāstrārthaḥ | na cāyamarthaḥ śakyaḥ kalpayitum | na hi devatāprītipradhānaḥ śāstrārthaḥ, kiṃ tarhi vidhyarthapradhānaḥ |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
This verse provides an exception, under certain conditions, to the rules regarding subsisting on alms.

‘In honour of Gods’;—i.e., when Brāhmaṇas are fed in honour of the gods; and also when they are fed in honour of the fathers;—if he is ‘incited,’ requested—‘he may eat freely’—the food given by one person. But he himself should not ask for it.

This again should be ‘in due accordance with his observances’; i.e., he should avoid honey and meat, which are inconsistent with his observances. The two phrases—‘in due accordance with his observances’ and ‘like an ascetic’—express the same meaning; and it does not mean that in a village he is to eat ‘in accordance with his observances,’ while in the forest he is to eat ‘like an ascetic.’ It is with a view to filling up the metre that the two phrases have been used. [There is another reason why the phrase ‘like an ascetic’ should not he taken separately]—‘Ascetic’ here stands for the hermit, so if the student were permitted to eat ‘like the hermit,’ the eating of meat also would become allowed for him; as the hermit is permitted to eat meat, by such rules as ‘he may eat the flesh of dead animals’ (Gautama, 3.31).

‘In honour of Gods’;—i.e., those rites of which gods are the deities; i.e., the feeding of Brāhmaṇas laid down as to be done at the performance of the Agnihotra, the Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa and the other sacrifices offered to the gods; as we find in such injunctions as ‘at the Āgrahāyaṇa and other sacrifices one should feed Brāhmaṇas and make them pronounce “svasti.”’ It is in connection with these that we have the present permission for the religious student.

Others explain the term ‘performance in honour of the gods’ to mean that feeding of Brāhmaṇas which is done in honour of the Sun-god on the seventh day of the month, and so forth.

This however is not right. For the act of eating has no connection with the gods,—being, as it is, not instrumental in the accomplishment of any sacrifice. Further, the mere fact of an act being done with reference to a god, does not make the latter the ‘deity’ of that act; if it did, then the Teacher would have to be regarded as the ‘deity’ when one gives a cow to him, and the room will have to be regarded as the ‘deity’ when one sweeps it. Then again, it is with the eater that the act of eating is directly connected; and the Sun-god has no active function in the fulfilment of that act (as the Teacher is in the former case); nor is he the thing aimed at (as the room is in the latter case); as the eating is not for his sake. Further, the accusative ending (in the term denoting food) denotes that it is meant for the eater, not that it is meant for the Sun-god. Nor has it been enjoined anywhere that ‘one should feed Brāhmaṇas for the sake of (with reference to) the Sun-god.’

It might be argued that on the basis of usage we assume the existence of such an injunction.

But this cannot be; because there is always some scriptural basis found for such assumption of injunctions.

“In the present case also we have such basis in the shape of the ‘external’ Smṛtis.”

If there were such a Smṛti-rule, its meaning would be that ‘one should please the gods by feeding Brāhmaṇas.’ And it would not be right to assume such a meaning; as scriptural injunctions are aimed, not at pleasin the Gods, but at accomplishing what is prescribed by the injunctions. Then again, if such were the meaning of the Injunction, its connection with the Sun-god and others intended to be deities could not be based either upon an object, or upon a desired result; nor again could they be the purpose, as in the case of the act of piercing; nor are they desired for their own sake, like cattle and other desirable things, for the simple reason that they are not something to be enjoyed. If it were the satisfaction of the Sun-god that were desired,—that also, will need a proof for its own existence; and there is no such proof available. Such a thing as the ‘satisfaction of the Sun-god’ is not known by Perception or other means of knowledge,—in the way that cattle, etc., are,—whereby it could be desired and connected with the performance of sacrifices.

2.189.2

na cāsminvidhyarthe ādityādīnāṃ devatābhimatānāṃ viṣayadvārakaḥ sambandhaḥ, nāpyadhikāradvārakaḥ | na hi bhedanādivannimittam | nāpi paścādivatsvasambandhitayā kāmyate | abhogyarūpatvāt | atha tadgatā tuṣṭiḥ kāmyate | sā'pyātmasiddhau pramāṇāntaramapekṣate | na ca tadasti | na hyādityādituṣṭiḥ pratyakṣādisiddhā paścādivacena kāmyeta pareṣṭividhinā yujyeta | atha tu 'matprabhuriti svābhipretena phalena yojayiṣyatīti' | etadapi pramāṇābhāvādupekṣaṇīyam | na cāsminnarthe vidhiḥ pramāṇam | sa hi jñātasyānuṣṭhātṛviśeṣaṇasya svasambandhitayā puruṣaṃ niyuṅkte, na punaḥ kāmyamānasya sadbhāvamavagamayati | pramāṇāntarāvagataṃ hi kāmyamanuṣṭhātṛviśeṣaṇam — anuṣṭhānasādhyamanuṣṭhātṛsambandhīti vidhiḥ pramāṇamiti mīyate | “athāyaṃ yāgastasya ca bhojanaṃ pratipattiḥ,” — bhavatu, yadi śiṣṭasamācāraḥ | bhojanaṃ tāvanna devatāsambandhi sākṣāditi na sādhyam | yāgavyavahitastu sambandho na nivāryate | na cātra yāgabuddhayā pravarttate, kiṃ tarhi brāhmaṇepu bhojiteṣu devatā tuṣyatīti | ato na devatā bhojanakārakaṃ na kārakaviśeṣaṇam | tato na viṣayatvena sambandhaḥ | uddeśyatvamapyādityādīnāṃ nāsti | bhojane hi sa uddiśyate yasmai bhojanaṃ dīyate | tacca brāhmaṇebhyaḥ | na coddeśyamātraṃ devatā upādhyāyāya gāṃ dadāti gṛhaṃ sammāṣṭīti gṛhopādhyāyayorapi prasaṅgāt | “nanu ca pitrye kathaṃ brāhmaṇabhojanam ? tatrāpi hi na pitarau devatāḥ syuḥ | na ca homasya pitryatvam, devatāntaraśravaṇāt | ādityādiprāteriva pitṛprīteḥ pramāṇāntarāsiddhatvānna vidheḥ sambandhaḥ sādhyatayā |'”

If there were such a Smṛti-rule, its meaning would be that ‘one should please the gods by feeding Brāhmaṇas.’ And it would not be right to assume such a meaning; as scriptural injunctions are aimed, not at pleasin the Gods, but at accomplishing what is prescribed by the injunctions. Then again, if such were the meaning of the Injunction, its connection with the Sun-god and others intended to be deities could not be based either upon an object, or upon a desired result; nor again could they be the purpose, as in the case of the act of piercing; nor are they desired for their own sake, like cattle and other desirable things, for the simple reason that they are not something to be enjoyed. If it were the satisfaction of the Sun-god that were desired,—that also, will need a proof for its own existence; and there is no such proof available. Such a thing as the ‘satisfaction of the Sun-god’ is not known by Perception or other means of knowledge,—in the way that cattle, etc., are,—whereby it could be desired and connected with the performance of sacrifices.

2.189.3

atra vadanti | siddhā hyatra pitṛprītiḥ | ātmanāmavināśitvāt pitaraḥ siddhāsteṣāṃ ca śarīrasambandhaḥ kriyate karmabhyaḥ | tadbhojanaṃ hyatra pradhānam | tasya hi phalaṃ śrutam—'bhojayanpuṣkala' phalamāpnoti |' tacca phalaṃ pitṝṇāṃ tasya tṛptiḥ syāditi | tṛptiśca prītimātram, na manuṣyāṇāmiva bhujikriyāphalaṃ sauhityalakṣaṇamucyate | kācidvipatṛṣṇāṃ prītiḥ svakarmavaśataḥ yatra tatra jātāvutpannānām | prītimātravacano'yaṃ dhātuḥ, sauhityaṃ tu viśeṣaḥ | sa pramāṇāntarāvaseyaḥ | na cātraitacchaṅkanīyam—"putraḥ kartā, pitṛṣu kathaṃ kartṛgāmiphalam ? na hīmāni karmāṇi vaidikāni parasya phaladānīti nyāyavido vadanti |" yataḥ pitara evātrādhikāriṇaḥ kartāraśca | apatyotpādanenaiva sarvametatpitṛbhiḥ kṛtam | evamarthamevāsāvutpādito 'dṛṣṭādṛṣṭamupakāraṃ kariṣyatīti |' tataśca yathā sarvasvāre'bhāvādvauttarakālikeṣvaṃgeṣu 'brāhmaṇāḥ saṃsthāpayata me yajñamiti' praiṣya mṛtasya kartṛtvam | evamatrāpi draṣṭavyam | etāvānviśeṣaḥ | tatrādhikārāntaraprayuktā jīvikārthino bhṛtiparikrītā ṛtvijaḥ 'kartāraḥ' | iha tu tadvidhiprayukta eva putraḥ | yathaivāpatyotpattividhiprayuktasya putrārtheṣu pituḥ saṃskāreṣu adhikāro'nuśāsanaparyantatvāttasya vidheḥ, evaṃ pitrarthe śrāddhādau putrasya | tathaiva jīvitaḥ pituḥ "vṛddhau tu mātāpitarau", ityavaśyaṃ kartavyam | evaṃ diṣṭaṃ gataṃ tasyāpi |

If there were such a Smṛti-rule, its meaning would be that ‘one should please the gods by feeding Brāhmaṇas.’ And it would not be right to assume such a meaning; as scriptural injunctions are aimed, not at pleasin the Gods, but at accomplishing what is prescribed by the injunctions. Then again, if such were the meaning of the Injunction, its connection with the Sun-god and others intended to be deities could not be based either upon an object, or upon a desired result; nor again could they be the purpose, as in the case of the act of piercing; nor are they desired for their own sake, like cattle and other desirable things, for the simple reason that they are not something to be enjoyed. If it were the satisfaction of the Sun-god that were desired,—that also, will need a proof for its own existence; and there is no such proof available. Such a thing as the ‘satisfaction of the Sun-god’ is not known by Perception or other means of knowledge,—in the way that cattle, etc., are,—whereby it could be desired and connected with the performance of sacrifices.

2.189.4

na cāyaṃ vaiśvānaravatkāmyodhikāraḥ | "vaiśvānaraṃ dvādaśakapālaṃ nirvapet putre jāte | yasmin jāta etāmiṣṭiṃ nirvapati, pūta eva sa tejasvyannāda indriyavān na bhavati" iti | evamādiputraphalārthino'dhikāraḥ piturvaiśvānare na cūḍādiṣvivāvaśyakaḥ | iha tu 'pitryamā nidhanātkāryamiti' yāvajjīvikaḥ | na karturvaidikaṃ phalamityetadanyathā pariṣkriyate | yathaiva vaiśvānaraviśiṣṭaputravattālakṣaṇaṃ pitureva phalaṃ, nākartṛgāmitā phalasya, evamihāpi putrasyaiva tatphalaṃ yā pituḥ prītiḥ | ubhayathā pitṛkartṛgāmitā phalasya na virudhyate | apatyotpādanenaivaitādṛśasya phalasyeṣṭatvāt pitṝṇāmapi nākāmitaphalāpattiḥ | "yadi na śrāddhe pitaro 'devatāḥ' kathaṃ tarhi pitryametatkarmeti devatāttaddhitaḥ |" uddeśyatvasāmānyāditi vadāmaḥ | 'yuṣmadupakārārthamidaṃ brāhmaṇabhojanamiti' pitara uddiśyante | piṇḍapitṛyajñe tu pitaro 'devatā' eva | na śrāddhe pitṝṇāṃ devatātvaṃ manyante | yattu brāhmaṇā bhojyante tadyathā'gnau homa ājyapuroḍāśādīnāmavadānasya, tādṛśametat | tathā ca brāhmaṇāḥ pitṛtvamāpadyante | ato'nnapariveṣaṇakāle pitara evoddeśyāḥ—'yuṣmabhyamidaṃ na mameti' brāhmaṇāstvāāhavanīyasthānīyāḥ | etāvānviśeṣo yadāhavanīye haviḥ prakṣipyate, brāhmaṇānāṃ tu sannidhāpyate, te tu svayamupādadata iti | na ca "śrāddhaṃ na yāgo na tatra devatārthaḥ svāhākāraḥ," sviṣṭakṛdādiṣu darśanāt | ato yāgo'pi san śrāddhakarma pitryarthaṃ bhaviṣyati | pitṝṇāṃ devatātvaṃ phalabhāktvaṃ na virotsyate | tṛtīye kiñcidanuktameva tatsambaddhaṃ vakṣyāmaḥ |

If there were such a Smṛti-rule, its meaning would be that ‘one should please the gods by feeding Brāhmaṇas.’ And it would not be right to assume such a meaning; as scriptural injunctions are aimed, not at pleasin the Gods, but at accomplishing what is prescribed by the injunctions. Then again, if such were the meaning of the Injunction, its connection with the Sun-god and others intended to be deities could not be based either upon an object, or upon a desired result; nor again could they be the purpose, as in the case of the act of piercing; nor are they desired for their own sake, like cattle and other desirable things, for the simple reason that they are not something to be enjoyed. If it were the satisfaction of the Sun-god that were desired,—that also, will need a proof for its own existence; and there is no such proof available. Such a thing as the ‘satisfaction of the Sun-god’ is not known by Perception or other means of knowledge,—in the way that cattle, etc., are,—whereby it could be desired and connected with the performance of sacrifices.

2.189.5

tasmādādityādayo brāhmaṇabhojane devatā iti sthitam | "nanu cāvyāpakametadapi lakṣaṇam—'yāge uddeśyaḥ devateti', antareṇāpi yāgasambandhaṃ devatāvyavahāradarśanāt—'devatānāṃ ca pūjanam' 'daivatānyabhigacchediti' na pūjā nāpyābhimukhyena gamanaṃ pādavihārātmakaṃ devatāḥ prati sambhavati |” naiṣa doṣaḥ | yatra devatācodanā tatraitatpūjāvidhānaṃ bhaviṣyati, vaiśvadevadevatāsvagnihotrādisambandhinīṣu vā | "nanu caivamapi nopapadyate | na hi devatāyāḥ pūjyatvaṃ sambhavati, svarūpahāniprasaṅgāt | pūjākarmatve hi yāgasampradānatā na syāt | uktam 'na kriyāntarasya kiñcidaṅgati' iti | śaktirhi kārakaṃ, sā ca pratikriyaṃ bhidyate | kāryāvagamyatvācca tasyā yāvatkāryaṃ bhedo nyāyyaḥ | ato yatsampradānaṃ tatsampradānameva, na tasya karmāpattiḥ | kathaṃ tarhi 'pācakāya dehi' paceḥ kartā dadāteḥ sampradānam | 'śaraiḥ kṣatāṅgaḥ priyayā kaṭākṣairnirīkṣyamāṇo vivaśo jagāma|' ukto'tra parihāraḥ | śaktiśaktimatorbhedasyaupacārikatvātsiddhaṃ 'vrajati bhukteveti' | tasmādyadi pūjāviṣayametat, na devatālābhaḥ atha devatā ādityādayaḥ, na pūjāvidhiḥ | na hi devatā siddhā yāmuddiśya pūjā vidhīyate | na hyādityādīnāṃ 'devatā' sāmānyaśabdaḥ, gośabdavacchāgaleyādīnām |" atrocyate | satyaṃ, nādityādayaḥ svarūpato 'devatāḥ' | sambandhiśabdoyam | vidhita eva devatārtho'vagantavyaḥ—"yasya haviścodyate sā tasya devatā" iti | sa evāgnira|gneyādanyatra na devatetyuktam | kiṃtu na pūjāvidhiḥ pūjyamānamantareṇa sambhavati | devatāśca pūjyatvena śrutāḥ |

From all this it becomes established that the Sun and the other gods arc not ‘deities’ in the feeding of Brāhmaṇas.

“The definition of ‘deity’ as one who is aimed at in a sacrifice is too narrow; because as a matter of fact, we find the name ‘deity’ applied even in cases where there is no connection with any sacrifice; e.g., in such statements as—(a) ‘the worshipping of deities,’ ‘one should approach the deities.’ But neither worship, nor going forward (which is what is expressed by approaching), is possible with regard to deities.”

There is no force in this; as the worship may be taken as enjoined in connection with those cases where the deity is actually enjoined; or, it may refer to the deities as related to the Agnihotra and other sacrifices.

“Even so, the difficulty does not cease. The deity can never be the object of worship; as that would deprive it of the very character of ‘Deity’ (which has been defined as consisting in being aimed at in a sacrifice); for if it were the object of worship, it could not be the recipient of the sacrifice. It h as been declared that ‘the active agent of one act cannot be an active agent of another.’ The ‘active agent’ is a particular kind of force, and this force varies with each particular act; and as the presence of such force can be indicated only by its effects, we can reasonably assume only that much of diversity in it as there may be effects. From this it follows that what is the ‘recipient of a gift’ must remain the recipient, it cannot become the object.—‘How then do we have such expressions as give this to the cooker, where the nominative of the action of cooking becomes the recipient,—or having his body wounded by arrows, he went away helplessly, being looked upon by the glances of his beloved, [where the object of the act of looking becomes the nominative of the act of going ].’—The answer to this has already been explained:—such expressions become justified by the difference between the efficiency and the efficient being regarded as secondary and figurative; as is found to be the case in such expressions as ‘having eaten, he goes.’ Thus then, if the aot in question is meant to be a worship, then its object cannot have the character of the ‘Deity’; while if the Sun and the rest are ‘deities,’ then the act enjoined cannot be regarded as ‘worship.’ Nor can it be held that the Sun being well known as a ‘deity,’ the present injunction lays down its worship. Because the term ‘deity’ is not a common name of the Sun and other gods, in the way in which the term ‘go’ (cow) is of the ‘śabaleya’ and other bovine varieties.”

To the above we make the following reply:—It is quite true that the Sun and others are not, in their own form, ‘deities’; the term ‘deity’ is a relative term; and it is only from an injunction that we can learn that a certain being is the ‘deity’ of an act; the fact being that when a certain offering is enjoined with reference to a being, this latter is the ‘deity’ of that offering. It is for this reason that Agni is not the ‘deity’ of any other offering save that ‘dedicated to Agni.’ [All this is quite true] but no injunction of ‘worship’ is possible without the object to be worshipped; and deities are found to be mentioned as objects of worship. Now if the act of ‘worship’ is not possible when the term ‘deity’ is taken in its primary sense, then the ‘worship’ may be taken as being of the nature of ‘sacrifice.’ But, in the absence of any mention (in the injunction of feeding Brāhmaṇas) of the substance to be offered and the deity to whom it is to be offered, the act in question cannot acquire the character of true ‘sacrifice’; so that the text iu question may be regarded as a descriptive reference for the purpose of prescribing the ‘forenoon’ as the proper time for it; the sense being that ‘all acts in honour of the gods should be done during the forenoon.’

2.189.6

tatra yadi devatārthe mukhyena pūjā sambhavati tadā yāga eva pūjā vijñeyā | tasya cārūpatvādasati dravyadevatāśravaṇe pūrvāhṇakālavidhyartho'yamanuvādo vijñeyaḥ | atā 'pūrvāhṇe daivatāni kartavyānī'tyuktaṃ bhavati | "kimucyate devatā na śrūyate |" yāvatā na sākṣāddevatāśabdo'sti | "nāyaṃ sāmānyavacano devatāśabdaḥ | yāsāmanyatra devatātvaṃ dṛṣṭaṃ tāsāmevaitatpūjāvidhānam | tenāgniradityo rudra indro viṣṇuḥ sarasvatītyevamādayaḥ pūjyāḥ | pūjārthaṃ ca dhūpadīpamālyopahārādīnāṃ nivedanam | tatrāgnestāvatsākṣātsambandhaḥ | ādityasya dūradeśavartitvācchucau deśe taduddeśena gandhādiprakṣepaḥ | indrādīnāṃ svarūpasyāpratyakṣatvādindrādiśabdoddeśenaiva tathā vidhānam | yadyapi pūjyamānapradhānā pūjā, tathāpi hi pūjyamānānāṃ kāryāntaraśeṣabhāve pūjaiba karttavyatayā vijñāyate | dravyapradhāne hi na vidhiviṣayatvasambhavaḥ | "tāni dvaidhaṃ guṇapradhānabhūtāni" iti ( mī0 sū0 2 | nyāyyaṃ tu stutiśastrādivat | yathā na stutiḥ stutyārthā evamiyamapi pūjā na pūjyārthā| stautiśaṃsatyornirdeśo nāstīti cet ? atroktam-dvitīyā, saktuṣu darśanāt | evaṃ 'mṛdaṃ gāṃ daivataṃ pradattiṇāni kurvīteti' dakṣiṇācaratā vidhīyate | dakṣiṇena daivāni karmāṇi karttavyāni | na hi mṛdādivaddevatāyā dakṣiṇena mārgeṇa sthānamamūrtatvāt yujyate |

“Why is it said that the deity is not directly mentioned?”

For the simple reason that there is no word directly signifying any deity. The term ‘deity’ that is actually found is the common name of all deities; so that the injunction refers to the worshipping of Agni, Āditya, Rudra, Indra, Viṣṇu, Sarasvatī and so forth; and during the worship there is offering of incense, light, garland, presents and such other things. In the case of Agni; the connection with the act of worship offered is always direct; as regards Āditya (the Sun-god) since he is far off, his worship consists in the placing of sandal-paste, flowers, etc., on a clean spot; and as regards Indra and the other gods, since they are not visible, their worshipping is done by the placing of flower, etc., accompanied by a reference to their names. Though in the act of worship, the beings worshipped form the predominant factor, yet inasmuch as they are subservient to the act to be done, it is the act of worship that comes to be recognised as what should be done. If the substance offered were the predominant factor, then the Deity could never form the subject of the injunction. All this is made clear in Jaimim’s Mīmānsā-Sūtra, 2.1.6 and 7. The view put forward on the other hand is perfectly reasonable, the case being analogous to that of the Hymns and Eulogies. The Hymn is not made for the sake of the hymn itself; so the worship also is not for the sake of the worshipped. If might be argued that Hymns and Eulogies are not mentioned here by name. But the answer to this has already been given. The accusative has the sense of the instrumental, as in the expression ‘juhoti,’ where ‘saktūn’ has been taken as ‘saktubhiḥ.’

Similarly the sentence ‘mṛdam gām daivatam pradakṣiṇāni kurvīta,’—‘one should have the clay, the cow, the deity to his right,’—lays down the use of the right hand; the sense being that all acts done in honour of the gods should be done with the right hand; the passage cannot mean that the deities ensouling the clay, etc., should be actually placed on the right; for the simple reason that the deities have no physical form.

To the above we make the following reply:—It is quite true that the Sun and others are not, in their own form, ‘deities’; the term ‘deity’ is a relative term; and it is only from an injunction that we can learn that a certain being is the ‘deity’ of an act; the fact being that when a certain offering is enjoined with reference to a being, this latter is the ‘deity’ of that offering. It is for this reason that Agni is not the ‘deity’ of any other offering save that ‘dedicated to Agni.’ [All this is quite true] but no injunction of ‘worship’ is possible without the object to be worshipped; and deities are found to be mentioned as objects of worship. Now if the act of ‘worship’ is not possible when the term ‘deity’ is taken in its primary sense, then the ‘worship’ may be taken as being of the nature of ‘sacrifice.’ But, in the absence of any mention (in the injunction of feeding Brāhmaṇas) of the substance to be offered and the deity to whom it is to be offered, the act in question cannot acquire the character of true ‘sacrifice’; so that the text iu question may be regarded as a descriptive reference for the purpose of prescribing the ‘forenoon’ as the proper time for it; the sense being that ‘all acts in honour of the gods should be done during the forenoon.’

2.189.7

evaṃ "daivatānyabhigacche diti" | pādavihāravyāpāreṇa devatāsamīpaprāptyasambhavādrameśca jñānārthatvādabhigamanaṃ smaraṇādikaṃ viśiṣyate ? devatā abhigacchet, karmakāle manasā dhyāyet cittavyācepatāmākulatākhyāṃ pariharedityarthaḥ | tathā copalabhya mānamūlaiveyaṃ smṛtirbhavati | 'yasyai devatāyai havigṛ hītaṃ syāttāṃ manasā dhyāyediti' | "nanu caitadapyuddeśyatvānyathānupapatteḥ prāptameva |" savyākṣepasyākulasya ca sambhavādadoṣaḥ | evaṃ 'devasvaṃ' 'devapaśavo' 'devadravyami'tyādayo vyavahārāstādarthyenopakalpiteṣu paśvādiṣu draṣṭavyāḥ | daṇḍādhikāre tu pratikṛtiviṣayameva devatāv‍yavahāramicchanti | anyathā vyavasthābhaṅgaḥ syāt | kalpitadevatārūpāṇāṃ pratikṛtīnāṃ kalpitenaiva svasvāmibhāvena yatsambandhi tadeva "devabrāhmaṇarājñāṃ tu dravyaṃ vijñeyamuttamam" ityādiṣu 'devadravyam' | na hi devatānāṃ svasvāmibhāvo'sti, mukhyārthāsambhavādvauṇa evārtho grāhyaḥ | "kaḥ punaratra gauṇo'rthaḥ ? sarvatra hi sādhāraṇaguṇayogādgauṇārthāvagatiḥ |" agnirmāvaka ityādiṣu śukle māṇavake tadguṇadarśanāt | te ca guṇāḥ pratyakṣādyavaseyāḥ | iha tu devatārthasya kāryāvagamyatvāt kāryataḥ svarūpaviśeṣānavagamāt kutaḥ pratikṛtiṣu sādhāraṇaguṇāvasāyaḥ | atrocyate | mantrārthavādeṣu tathāvidharūpaśravaṇātteṣāṃ ca guṇavādena vyākhyānam | tanmūlamapaśyanto yathāśrutagrāhiṇastādrūpyamindrādiṣu pratipadyamānāḥ pratikṛtiṣu sādṛśyaṃ paśyantīti yuktaiva gauṇatā |

The same holds good regarding the injunction ‘one should move up to the gods.’ Since it is not possible for one to go near the gods by walking on foot, and since the root ‘gam’ (as in ‘abhigāccet’) signifies knowledge, why should ‘abhigamana’ differ from Remembrance? The sense thus is that during the act one should think of the gods; i.e., he should avoid all anxiety or distraction of the mind. In this way this Smrti is found to be one whose basis is actually found in the Vedic Injunction, which says—‘One should think in his mind of that deity to whom he may be offering the libation.’

“But this thinking of the deity is already implied in the aiming (which has been put forward in the definition of the Deity),—which cannot be done without thinking.”

This objection has no force; as mere aiming can be done also by a man who is anxious and whose mind is distracted.

Thus then all suoḥ expressions as ‘the property of the gods,’ ‘the cattle of the gods,’ ‘the substance of the gods’ and the like are to be taken as referring to such cattle and things as hare been assigned to (dedicated to) the gods. Some people have held that in the seotion dealing with penalties to be inflicted upon persons stealing the ‘property of gods,’ it is the image of the god that is meant; as otherwise the regulations bearing upon the subject would become liable to he infringed. As regards the images upon whom the character of ‘gods’ has been imposed, things are called their ‘property’ on the basis of an assumed sense of ownership; and it is such property that is referred to as ‘property of the gods,’ in such passages as—‘the highest penalty is to be inflicted on the stealing of the property of Gods, Brāhmaṇas and Kings.’ In reality, gods can have no rights of ownership; and hence the literal sense of the expression being inadmissible, it is only right that we should accept the figurative one.

“In the present case what is the figurative sense? In every instance of figurative use, the presenoe of a common function (or quality) forms the basis; e.g., the expression ‘the Boy is Fire’ is used when the boy is found to possess the white resplendence of fire. Similarly in every case the figurative or secondary sense is recognised only where there is some common property present;—the presence of suoḥ property being cognised by means of perception and other means of cognition. In the case in question however, since the sense of the deity is recognisable only by the purpose served by it,—and the form of the deity cannot be ascertained through that purpose,—how could there be any recognition of common properties?”

Our answer is as follows:—We find particular forms of deities described in the Mantras and Arthavādas; and all these descriptions are interpreted as figurative. People who do not perceive any basis for such interpretation take the passages in their literal sense and regard Indra and the deities as actually possessing those forms; and the similarity of such forms they actually perceive in the images; and in this sense also it is only natural that the description should he regarded as figurative.

2.189.8

ye tu śrāddha eva vaiśvadevabrāhmaṇabhojanaṃ devadaivatyamācakṣate, teṣāṃ pitryāṅgatvāt tasya pitryagrahaṇena gṛhītatvādanarthakaṃ punarvacanam | sāmānyaśabdatvācca kuto viśeṣāvagatiḥ | sāhacaryāditi cet—yadi na pitryaśabdena grahaṇaṃ bhavet | gobalīvardanyāyo'pyasati viṣayabhede bhavati |

Some people have explained that the feeding of Brāhmaṇas at Śrāddha in honour of the Viśvedevas is what is described here as being ‘in honour of the gods.’ But such feeding, being part of what is done ‘in honour of ancestors,’ becomes included under the latter phrase, and the re-iteration of it would he entirely meaningless. Then again, since we have the generic term ‘gods,’ on what grounds could we restrict it to the Viśvedevas only P If such restriction be based upon the association of the term ‘pitrya’ ‘in honour of ancestors,’—then, since the acts thus spoken of would not he included in ‘those done in honour of ancestors,’—the two words could he justified on the analogy of the expression ‘go-balibarda,’ ‘bovine bull,’ which is used even when there is not much difference between what is denoted by the two terms.—(189)