________________
JULY, 1921)
THE MEMASA DOCTRINE OF WORKS
217
arm. 31 Objection: If it does not exist, then it is not credible that we caught hold of the arm; hence we have to infer the existence of the arm thus—there is this hand, that which we held. (Reply): This cannot be; for though there may be the arm, it is matter of DIRECT PEROEPTION that we did not hold it. So even thus (accepting your inference), there is still an incongruity. We have thus either to admit an absurdity or say this is mere praise (stuti, i.e., Arthavada). But it may be said that this is the statement of a man who caught hold of Indra's arm. We reply, this should not be suggested as it would subject the Veda to the imperfection of having a commencement (in time)32 Again, we are not told that there was a man who caught (the arm), for there is no evidence and it cannot be said that from this very statement, we infer the existence of him who caught the arm, for there occur in the Vedas) also statements which are meaningless like "ten pomegranates, six cakes". Again, taking him who holds this view that Indra has a form, even according to him, the summoning by the term 'Indra' is for invoking the deity, and the invocation is a remembrancer.33 In that case remembrancing is proper only if we have known that he is relevant (related to the sacrifice). But it is not known by any means that he is. That being so, the invocation is futile. And it cannot be held that we infer that he is invoked from the evidence of the WORD ; for we have said 34 that when we assume an Adrishta (literally unseen, is. equal to, Apûrva), there cannot be any assumption of the hand, etc. Further, it is by no means sure that he has been invoked; for there is no proof (to that effect). Therefore the Vocative word is not for the sake of an invocation, but only for a designation. Even in the case of the deity having no form, it might likewise be used for designation. The vocativeending-word is for praise. Thus, this, which is called deity, is only) the most important means to the sacrifice), which is called by the Vocative word and entertained as if it were sentient in the belief that it procures some good. Likewise, the deity is indicated by the Vocative word and told " we have caught hold of thy hand," that is to say, we are dependents on you. This is only a reminder to us that we have to perform a deed connected with Indra (Indrakarma).
(D-cont.) Likewise, “these two, heaven and earth, are very far apart, and these you hold, Oh, Maghavan, thy fist is great”-in this the fist is praised as if it exists. But there is no proof that it exists. For this is not to say thy fist is great. But what? That which is thy fist, that is great. These are different ideas, namely, “thy fist exists", and "thy fist is great". And it should not be said that a thing could be praised only if it exists; for even if a thing is not necessarily connected with (i.e., does not possess) human attributes, even that thing is (sometimes) praised as if it had human attributes, e.g., "They speak out like a hundred, like a thousand men ; they cry aloud to us with their green-tinted mouth; while, pious stones, they ply their task with piety and even before the Hotar, taste the offered food"36. Again, “Sindhu hath yoked her car, light rolling, drawn by steeds" 36.
11 This line of reasoning may appear quoer at first sight. Still, not only is it perfectly logical, but is often found useful in modern discussions. Thus, there are two versions of the martyrdom of St. Thomas in India, but no proof that he was martyred at all, of. V. A. Smith, Orford History, page 126.
32 The Mimarse system starts by "proving" the eternity of the WORD. In the proof incidents like this are explained away. Muir, O.S.T., Vol. III, is still useful for the general reader.
93 The text is anuvachana, i.e., saying again what has been settled before. 34 I have not been able to trace this reference so far.
36 RV., X, 94, 2. It may here be noticed that Durgacharya in his commentary on N. 7, 7, quotes this passage and comments on it in the exact manner of a Mimamaist. He says in effect : Seeing that stones are referred to like this, it can be no proof of Indrs being animate and human that he is referred to likewise.
86 RV., X, 75, 9. N. 7, 7. Here Sayana has Sindhurdevata.
