Manava Dharmashastra 2.189.6

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.’