Purva-Mimamsa in its Sources c33.3

c33.3

As against the above *Prima Facie View*, the *Established Conclusion*, set forth under Sū. 9.1. 9-10, is as follows:—*In fact, it is the objective of the Sacrifice—i.e., the Apūrva—that should be regarded as the principal factor; because the matter is one that can be determined only by the Vedic Word; and the Deity is spoken of only as a subordinate factor.* (Sū. 9.1.9.). The Vedic Word clearly asserts that the Fruit of the Sacrifice proceeds from the act of Sacrifice, not from the Deity. The Deity and the offering-material are both accomplished entities, while the Act of Sacrifice is what is to be accomplished; from all this it is clear that the Deity cannot be the prompter of Details. In fact, that alone can be regarded as the prompter of Details which brings about the desired Result; hence it is the Apūrva that should be regarded as the Prompter of the Details. The view set forth above makes it necessary to admit of Deities having material bodies and actually eating and drinking the Substances offered; and this idea is utterly repugnant to the Veda, which does not lend support to any such idea regarding Deities. The text quoted above regarding the ‘right hand’ of Indra does *not* mean that ‘Indra has got a right hand’; what it means is—‘We have taken hold of what is Indra’s right hand’; because even so, the text cannot be taken as literally true; because even if Indra has a ‘right hand’, it cannot be possible for any human being to ‘take hold’ of it. As regards the invocational words addressed to the Deity, these are not meant to be addressed literally; they are meant only to indicate the particular Deity; and the sense of the invocational words would be mere eulogy, the sense of the Eulogy being that ‘the Deity is such an efficient instrument of accomplishing the desired result that it accomplishes it, on being invoked, in the same manner as ordinary persons equipped with bodies and organs, etc.’ Having been thus invoked, if the Deity is told ‘I have taken hold of your hand’, all that these words mean is that ‘we are dependent upon you’, and this serves the purpose of reminding us that we should proceed to perform the rites in honour of this particular Deity. As regards the text speaking of the ‘fist of Indra holding Heaven and Earth’, all that it means is the praise of Indra, the sense being that ‘Indra is such a being that if he had a fist, it would be so large as to be able to hold Heaven and Earth’. Thus there is no Vedic text that could justify the presumption that Deities have bodies like human beings. The texts that speak of the ‘arms’ of Indra being ‘hairy’, or his eyes as ‘tawny’,—all these are purely eulogistic. Nor is there actual feeding or eating at Sacrifices; in fact, the Deity never eats; hence the argument that ‘the feeding is for the Deity’ (Sū. 9.1.6) is not true. In fact, the idea of the Deities actually eating the offering-materials is negatived by the fact that Deities have no material body. If the Deities actually ate the substances offered, then these would diminish in quantity. Nor is there any proof for the assertion that “the Deities partake of the Essence only of the viands offered and hence there is no dimnishing of the quantity.” We cannot therefore accept the notion that the Deities actually eat the offerings. Then again, it is not possible for the Deity to own property; and not owning anything, it cannot give anything; the texts generally quoted as indicative of the fact of Deities owning property are purely eulogistic. From all this it follows that the Deity cannot be the prompter of Details. The case of the Deities is not the same as that of the Guest. (*Bhāṣya*, Trs., pp. 1432–1437.)