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

A NEW APPROACH TO THE VEDAS

than of the breath of life that is immediately denoted. The distinction rather logical than real; kama and pydna being inseparable ‘‘ movements,’ simultaneous alike in origination and cessation. “‘ Deflagration ’’ might have been a better rendering of (Buddhist) nivvana, but the use in Physics of deflagration as practically equivalent to conflagration makes this difficult. The to be preferred renderings of Buddhist nirvana and parinirvana seem to be “ Extinction’’ and “ Total Extinction,’’ with reference, that is, to the flame of life.

33 “* Prajapati’’ occurs in the Rg Veda, viz., IV, 53, 2, as an epithet of Savitr as Universal Mover, and X, t21, fo, again as an epithet of the Supernal-Sun.

34 Re Veda, X, 168, 4, atma devanam, bhuvanasya garbha.

Cf. Jaiminiya Brahmana, II, 77, “‘ Who is the one and only Angel ? Spirit (prana),”’ and Jaiminiya Upanisad Brahmana, III, 1, t, “ There is but one entire Angel (viz. Vayu), the others are but semi-Angels.”’

35 For Vayu as the dawn-wind of creation see especially Re Veda, I, 134, where it is clear that the wind is thought of as precedent to dawn, being indeed called upon to awaken the dawn. It may be added that ‘““Dawn’”’ (Usas, etc.) in the Vedic hymns generally refers to dawn of a cycle of manifestation, not merely any dawn (human dawns are but in the analogy of cosmic dawns, just as human years are but analogies of supernal “ years ”’).

36 As expressed by Sankaracarya, ‘‘ His nature is inscrutable,” na ca svabhavah paryanuyoktum Sakyate, Comment on Brahma Sitra, I, 2, 33.

37 Blake’s ‘‘ Man is born like a garden, ready planted and sown” : Jung, “ The psychological individual . . . has an a priori unconscious existence,” Psychological types, p. 560. ;

Bohme’s conception of the one harmony and its necessarily diverse manifestations has its equivalent in the theology of Jili, where every divine “ attribute has its effect (athav) in which its jamal or jalal or kamal is manifested ’’ so that “ Paradise is the mirror of absolute jamal, Hell of absolute jalal,’’ Nicholson, Studies . . . p. 100.

87a The primordial causality of intrinsic nature (svabhava) is categorically denied in Svetésvatara Up., I, 2 and VI, r. The contradiction involved is more apparent than real, and depends on the distinction of “cause”’ from “ means.’’ It is indeed ‘“ by the Allmight of the Angel (i.e., the “ Father’’) that this Brahma-wheel revolves’’; but the position of each existent (sthita = avyapaka) thing, its specific modality, is determined by qualities inherent in the thing itself.

This intrinsic nature, whereby each thing is what it is, constitutes the private measure of free will of each thing, though its autonomy is limited by the coexistence of other things.

The question, whether God as he is in himself knows good and evil as we know them can be answered with assurance in the negative by the consideration that He cannot be thought of as subjected to limitations of individuality ; the knowledge of good and evil belongs to avidya, ‘‘ ignorance,” “‘ relativity.’’ In the same way with respect to causal operation, a temporal separation of cause and effect being inconceivable from the standpoint of absolute understanding (vidya). Cf. Rg. Veda, I, 164, 32, “‘ He who hath made him (Agni VaiSvanara) knows him not.”

It may be noted that Genesis, III, 22, now translated “‘ The Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us to know good and evil,” should have been rendered ‘‘ Behold the man who hath been like one