A new approach to the Vedas : an essay in translation and exegesis

NOTES

gloss, sthita = avyapaka, “ particular,’ “ individual,” in opposition to yat = vyapaka, ‘ universal,” ‘‘ pervading.” The common renderings (Max Miller, Hume, etc.) of sthita as “solid” or “ stationary,” are entirely misleading, the reference being to whatever is integrated or actual, whether physical or mental. In the same way the renderings of yat as “ fluid” or “ moving’’ are mistaken: “ fluids” are by no means less “ sthita’’ than are “ solids,’’ while the “ mobility ’’ implied in yat is principial, not local. As remarked by Sayana in connection with Rg Veda, V, 10, 1, sthitarn padartha jatam, “ the meaning of the word sthita is ‘ born ’,”’ cf. Eckhart, “ Anything known or born is an image,” as in Brhadaranyaka Up., I, 3, 1, where what is sthita is also muria. What is sthita, existent, is precisely the five subtle elements and their gross manifestations: ‘‘ this all, this work of His which revolves, is to be thought of as solid (prthvya), liquid (apya), phlogistical (teja), gaseous (anila) and etheric (kha),”’ Svetdévatara Up Vile:

Sthita is to yat as tasthusah to jagaiah in Rg Veda, I, 115, 1; as dhyruova to carat in X, 5, 3 (dhruva = sthita also in VII, 88, 7); as uisthatu to anugata in X, 19, 3 and 1 (where also stha in 3 corresponds to giv in 6) ; as 2jat to carat in Mundaka Up., II, 1 (where the ‘ carat ” is guha@ sannihitam, ‘hid in the innermost “\; and as paribhyvamati to carati in Maitri Up., III, 2 and II, 7 (where also that which “ carati ”’ is acala, “immoveable”’). In Maitri Up., VI, 6, car is used with respect to the Person in the eye, which “ surveys ”’ (carati) dimensioned things. In all these passages gam and car are used with respect to principial motion, stha with respect to things which have a place and local motion; cf. Eckhart, I, 114, “ Like motion without motion although causing motion and size which has no size though the principle of size.”

The case of Rg Veda, V, 47, 5, is especially interesting: ‘“’Tis a marvel, this paradox, ye folk, that when the rivers (nadyah) flow (caranti), the waters {apah) stand (tasthuh).’ Direct comparison with Ecclesiastes, I, 7, is fallacious. What is intended is as follows : Principial motion theve, is birth, concrete existence, position, here.”’

112 See my On translation: maya, deva, tapas, in Isis, 55. A minimum qualification for a profound study of this aspect of Vedic ontology would be not merely a knowledge of the Vedas and Upanisads, but in addition an acquaintance with the Gnostic conception of the Pleroma and of Aeons, and with the Christian theory of angels as outlined in the sections of the Summa Theologica dealing with Divine Government (I, QQ. 103-119). The discussion above is offered merely as an essay towards a better understanding of the problems involved.

U8 Cf. also Brhad Devata, I, 98, “ the divinity (devatva) of each angel is from their being-of-one-spheve (salokyatva) and of one and the same origin (ekajdtatua) and because of the immanence (vyaptimatva) of the fiery-energy (tejas) in them, though it is seen that they are individually lauded.” A like interdependence of the angels is implied in the susamrabdha of our text. The “ angels’’ here are the Persons of the Trinity.

114 Inversely, the angel is the “ self’”’ (atman) of the weapon or vehicle, Brhad Devata, 1V, 143.

115 That is, each of the Selves or Persons has his own-nature, potentiality, Sakti.

103 H