we are to worship Him and thereby attain Him and Immortality (pp. 241-242.),
Then comes forward another objector, the Mimamsaka, who says that the enquiry into the Brahman need not be conducted at all, in as much as such an enquiry cannot produce the result which is expected of it. His objection is called the Adhikarana-purvapaksha, and is largely based upon linguistic thought and reasoning. He says that the true signification of a word is always to denote an action, and the import of the Vedas consists in the actions they prescribe. The Vedanta cannot be authoritative like them and cannot teach the Brahman, for the reason that the meaning of the word Brahman is independently established otherwise than as an inference from actions. The physical expression of the emotions caused by listening to spoken sentences cannot enable us to determine the meanings of words, in as much as many things may give rise to similar emotions. Neither the etymology of a word, nor its relation to other words in a sentence can enable us to ascertain its meaning independently of all action; because both these methods of interpreting words are obviously dependent upon action. Moreover, mere verbal statements cannot produce any kind of practical conviction and activity, and volition alone is the cause of all voluntary activity. Therefore that which induces voluntary activity has to be the thing that is expressed by words, and thus it is but proper that action forms the thing which is to be learnt from the Vedas. The Brahman is neither an action nor anything that is definitely related to an action; and the knowledge of such a Brahman cannot give rise to any infinite and eternal result in the shape of immortality. On the other
