Manava Dharmashastra 2.189.7

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.