________________
220
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JULY, 1921
Hence, (we say) those that get Hymns (Sakta) and offering (Havis) are deities. Who are those that get hymns ? "For Jâta vēdas worthy of cur praise will we frame with our mind this eulogy as't were a car; for good, in his assembly, is this care of ours. Let us not in thy friendship, Agni, suffer harm."41 Those who got Havis, as in-"He shall prepare (the Purodása offering) pertaining to Agni on eight potsherds", "That pertaining to Agni-Soma on eleven potsherds". Objection: If all those that get Havis are deities, then the potsherds become eligible to deityhood as they also get the Havis. Then (we say) that which gets the Havis and about which it can be said the Havis is intended for it, (that) is the deity. Likewisc in the case of hymns. The word Devata is in TRADITION used thu 3:-"The hymn having Agni for its deity, the Havis having Agni for its deity." Likewise, "having the guest for deity, having Mancs for deity". Thus deityhood co:nes to be (an attribute) of all embodied and abstract, animate and inanimate (objects) to which in accordance with VERBAL TESTIMONY, something or other comes to be devoted as being particularly intended for them. And the common word (Devata) also becomes appropriate (gains a definite meaning). What hence? If that is so, then for a particular act, that is the deity, the word indicating which is intended or remembered, when the resolution is made, "I give up (this) Havis".
But in that case, any word for Agni may be used to indicate (that deity in the Darsa and Purnamasa sacrifices). Here we say that it might be so, if the word Agni is pronounced for conveying its meaning and if the meaning is conveyed for indicating its connection with the Havis. But here the word 'Agni' is not so pronounced for the sake of its meaning. Where an operation takes place on the thing connoted, there the word is for conveying its meaning, as there is use for the meaning. But where the operation is on the word itself, there only the word must be conveyed which is intended to be connected with the operation. And the deity does not become a means to the sacrifice by its form, (Rupa). By what then? By the connected word. Just as the Adhvaryu aids by both his hands, so the deity aids by the word. "He cleanses the Hota's hand by twice rubbing (i.e., by two coatings of ghee)"- just as here though there is (direct) connection with the hand, still it is only the Hotar that aids, likewise the deity that helps by the connected word is understood to aid (the sacrifice). Though the deity is enjoined as an aiding agent, still it is only the sound (word) that is connected with the sacrifice. Therefore the word is not pronounced for conveying its meaning ; for else, the meaning (conveyed) will once more convey the word and give rise to (the fault of) far-fetchedness.13 Is it then (like this)—that only the word is connected with the Havis, and by its connection with the word the object connoted is also deity; so that it is the deity whose name is so connected with the Havis that the latter is intended) for the former? (No.) It is only when there can be no operation on the word that it comes to be on the meaning. But here the operation is only on the word. Therefore the word is not for conveying its meaning (the object connoted by it). Hence it has been said by the Vrittikära-"The word comes first, the understanding of its meaning afterwards; from the word arises the meaning". Thus the Havis is connected only with the word 'Agni,' and other words like Suchi, etc., have no place in the sacrifice). And hence, it is only the word in the Vidhi that must be used as Mantra. It may be said that in such a case the word by itself becomes the deity. Our reply is that it is not our concern to refute this; for it by no means, invalidates our contention that the words "Suchi, etc. " have absolutely no place in the Mantra). 14
(To be continued.) 41 RV., I, 94.
The point of the following disonasion is whether in a sacrifice the meaning of the word for the deity is intended, or simply the word. If the former, two consequences follow: (1) Any other word conveying the same meaning may be substituted in the place of that mentioned in the Vidhi. (2) The concrete existence of the deity is also accepted.
13 Text has “Lakshitalakshand." * This last reply is very interesting and must be carefully noted.
