________________
JULY, 1921)
THE MIMANSA DOCTRINE OF WORKS
213
inanimate things treated as persons. Yâska in his Nirukta devotes a section to a brief and suggestive discussion on this point.9 This portion of Yåska's great work may be said to constitute the point of departure for the Mimamsist view regarding gods. Yâska starts with the sentence : " Then (comes) the consideration of the form of gods." He then states one view saying that gods are like men, and quotes instances from the Veda in which gods are described as (1) having hands, feet, etc., like men, (2) possessing a house, wife, property, etc., like men, and (3) eating, drinking, and doing all other things like men. He then states the opposite view that gods are not like men and quotes instances where inanimate things like wind, earth, sun, etc., are described in exactly the same manner as that just noticed in the case of the other gods. He concludes by suggesting that they may both be considered wise, or that the inanimate things may be considered to have their animate duplicates (karmatmanah), and points out that the last constitutes the belief of the Akhyanas (folklore, or the Mahabharata, according to the comment of Dargâchârya). The texts of the Veda quoted by Yaska furnish the standard instances of the Mîmânså discussions on the matter.
Having thus indicated the nature of the question taken up for discussion by the Mimâmsa school, the discussion itself may now be reproduced. It takes the form of an enquiry as to whether the sacrifice is performed for the sake of pleasing a deity whose favour is solicited by the act or not. As happens generally in such discussions, the position to be refuted comes out in a lengthy púrvapaksha, and then follows the answer. The main stages in the argument will be indicated by prefixing capital letters to each stage in the purvapaksha and repeating the same letters to indicate the corresponding answurs in the siddhanta. The translation aims at being more literal than literary. Where the text has not been closely followed, this will be pointed out in foot-notes and the reasons stated for the course adopted. There are many extracts from the Rig Veda in the Bhashya; these I have mostly traced out with the aid of the Vedic Concordance of Professor Bloomfield, and I have used Griffith's version of the Pig Veda and modified it slightly in some places in the light of the great commentaries of Sâya acharya on the Veda and Durgacharya on the Nirukta. The texts are marked off separately from my own elucidations and incidental comments.
TEXTS : No. I. (Jaimini IX, 1, 6-10, and Sabarasvámi thereon.) (SU:) Or, the deity shall cause the deed to be done (prayojayet) as the guest; the meal (sacrifice) is for the deity's sake (IX, 1, 6).
(COM.) It is not true that Agni and others are not the inducing agents (of the deed). 10 (On the other hand) all deities deserve to be considered) the instigators of all sacred deeds. Why? Because the meal is for their sake. (E) For this, which is known as a sacrifice, is (no other than) the meal for the deity. Edible material is offered to the deity, saying, the deity shall eat. (A) The name of the deity is mentioned in this sacrifice in the Dative case 11, and the Dative case is employed when a thing is more directly aimed at than in the Accusative case. Therefore the deity is not secondary, (rather) the material (dravya) and the deed (sacrifice) are secondary, with reference to the deity.
• VII, 6-7, pp. 754 and 761 of tho Bombay Government Ednl. Serio.. .
10 This sentenos of Sabara takes up the discussion from a conclusion arrived at in the preceding action.
11 Here the commantator employs the technical expressione of grammar. An attempt to translate them literally will make the translation oumbrous without helping to clear up t' meaning. This remark applies to all places where the discussion hinges on case terminations.
