Xlii ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS.
finality in utility. Even if the Brahman is self-evident, there is nothing wrong in His being made the object of an 'action' so that He may be realised in the non-phenomenal form (pp. 287-288). The Mlmdmsaka contends against this view also, and says that all those, who maintain like him that the syntactical meaning of sentences is a commandment, must also be prepared to distinctly point out like him, in every case under consideration, the commandment, the attribute of the person to whom the commandment is direct- ed, the special object of the commandment, the manner of carrying out the commandment, the details of procedure to be adopted in carrying it out, and the person who is to carry it out. It is fully possible to do this in connection with Vedic commandments all of which enjoin the perform- ance of ritualistic works. There is, for instance, the commandment bearing upon the Jyotishtoma sacrifice ; this commandment is to be found in the Yajiirveda ; the attribute of the person to whom the commandment is directed is the desire to attain Sioarga ; the_special object of the commandment is the Jyotishtoma sacrifice ; the yajamdna or the sacrificer is the performer thereof ; and the manner of performing it and the details of procedure to be adopted in so performing it are all distinctly laid down in authoritative works relating thereto. But in the case of the supposed Ved antic commandment enjoining the non-phenomenalisation of the Brahman, it is not possible to specify any attribute as that which has necessarily to belong to the person to whom the commandment is directed ; nor is it possible to know in this case what the special object of the commandment is, in as much as this special and immediate object of the commandment has to be different from the final aim thereof, in the way in which the Jyotishtoma sacrifice is different from Swarga. Further,
