Manava Dharmashastra 2.189.5

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.’