________________
216
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ JCLY, 1921
It is the sacrifice and not the deity that is mentioned simultaneously with the desire for heaven. But then, is not the sacrifice an operation with sacrificing material (dravya) and the deity (devata)? True it is. But the mention of the deity is secondary. The dravya and devata are there already ; it is the sacrifice which must be brought into existence. When something that exists is mentioned along with some other that has to be brought into existence, the existent is mentioned for the sake of the non-existent. Therefore the deity is not the inducing agent.
(A) As for the statement-"(the deity) is more directly aimed at (by the Dative) than when the Accusative (termination) is used", -(we say) we do not gainsay the fact of its being aimed at. It is clear from the SENTENCE 28 that the meaning of the term devata, connected as it is with a taddhita form or a Dative ending, is being directly aimed at But from the very same source (it is seen) that it is the sacrifice that is connected with the fruit ; for by EXPRESS REFERENCE we learn the instrumentality of that and not of the deity (in producing the fruit). Again, though we may infer that the sacrifice is for the deity, still this need not stand in the way of its being performed for the sake of its fruit. It is the fruit that is the purushartha (the thing desired by man). And the endeavour for the sake of the purushártha is ours, not the deity's. Therefore we do not do anything on account of any inducement from the deity. And the mention of the deity's name with the Dative ending quite fits in if it (deity) is a means to the (performance of the) fruitful sacrifice.
(B) And as for the statement)"sacrifice is worship to the deity and the object of worship is the primary thing in worship as we see it in the world "-(we reply), here it should not be as in the world. Here the worship of the worshipped is important. That which is fruitful is the inducing agent. Therefore the act of sacrifice is the inducing agent. Again by this view (that is being refuted now) we have to assume that the deity has a form and that it eats, as there can be no gift or meal for a formless and uneating deity.
(D) 29 As for the statement--"from TRADITION, POPULAR BELIEF, and CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (we see that) the deity has form and eats "-(we reply) it is not (true); TRADITION is based on Mantras and Arthavadas. It is a matter of DIRECT PERCEPTION that (all) the knowledge on which TRADITION rests is based on them. And we shall show (elsewhere) 30 that those Mantras and Arthavadas do not support this view. Says the objector: "If that is so, (i.e., if the Mantras and Arthavadas do not say that deities have form), then (I say) the knowledge on which TRADITION rests does not come from Mantra and Arthavada". We reply that for those who take a superficial view of Mantra and Arthavada, for them it (the knowledge thus gained by a superficial view) is the basis of TRADITION. (That is) even if it is invalidated for those who take a deeper view, still for some one or other it becomes the basis of TRADITION. Therefore TRADITION has only this source and POPULAR BELIEF is only based on TRADITION.
(D-cont.) As for CIRCUMSTANTLAL EVIDENCE like " Oh, Indra, thy right arm we caught", it does not mean that Indra has an arm. It only means-that which is his right arm, that we caught; therefore, we do not learn from the SENTENCE the existence of Indra's
2 Here it must be explained that there are grades of validity even in VERBAL TESTIMONY. For the present purpose it is enough to note that Sruti (EXPRESS REFERENCE) has greater force than odkya (SENTENCE). See Jaimini, III, 3, 14.
> Attention may be drawn to the unique interest this paragraph possesses for the modern student of Comparative Religion.
99 See the next Extract, No. II.
