________________
Vada ] Gañadharavada
•:385 :himself ( when ) accompanied by the prosperity of merits is god. ( But ) that is not ( correct ). ( Because ) the accomplishment ( of the secondary meaning ) by means• of usage could be brought about (only ) when the primary meaning is established, just as the epithet “ sinha" or lion could be attributed to Mänavaka by means of usage only, if the primary sense of the word “ siņha” is accepted ( 1889–1881 )
टीका-" देवाः" इत्येतत् पदं सार्थकं व्युत्पत्तिमच्छुद्धपदत्वात् , घटादिवत् । तत्र दीव्यन्तीति देवा इति व्युत्पत्तिमत्त्वम् , समासतद्धितरहितत्वेन च शुद्धत्वम् । भावना चात्र प्रागुक्तैव । अथ परस्य मतिर्भवेत्-ननु मनुष्य एवेह दृश्यमानो देवो भविष्यति, किमदृष्टदेवकल्पनया ?। किं सर्वोऽपि मनुष्यो देवः ? इति । न, इत्याह-गुणसंपन्नो गणधरादिः, ऋद्धिसंपन्नश्चक्रवादिः। अत्रोच्यते-तदेतद् न, यस्मात् तथ्ये मुख्ये वस्तुनि क्वचित् सिद्धे सत्यन्यत्रोपचारतस्तत्सिद्धिमता, यथा मुख्य यथार्थे सिंहेऽन्यत्र सिद्धे ततो माणवके सिंहोपचारः सिध्यति, एवमिहापि यदि मुख्या देवाः क्वचित् सिद्धा भवेयुः, तदा राजादेर्देवोपचारो युज्यते, नान्यथेति ॥ ३३२-३३३ ॥ (१८८०-१८८१)
D. C.-Since the word “ devāh" is void of compound and prefixes, and is explained as tatra divyantîti devāh ( those that shine there, are deities ), it is philologically siddha, like other padas such as ghata etc.
Maurya :-The man himself seen before our very eyes is God. Why to imagine an invisible form for that? All men are not gods. But those accompanied by high merits and religious prosperity could easily be taken as gods.
Bhagavan:-That is not correct. Unless and until the principal meaning of a word is not accomplished, it could never be attributed to any other object by means of upacara. The epithet of lion could easily be attributed to mūnavaka only if the primary sense of the word sınha is accomplished.
Similarly, here also the epithet “ devah " could be attributed
