Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Elements of Buddhist Iconography c6: Notes

Elements of Buddhist Iconography c6

Language
English

Notes

c6.1

1 *(page 3)*. The likeness of any thing as such, presented to the eye’s intrinsic faculty, is merely an occasion of sensation, and necessarily without meaning; recognition being an animal, not an intellectual operation.

c6.2

2 *(page 3)*. In one sense, though not essentially, the aniconic image may be regarded as more a likeness of Him, that is in so far as it reminds us of the relative unimportance of the human mode, as merely a particular case amongst the possibilities of existence.

c6.3

3 *(page 3)*. Cf. *Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa*, III, 32, “This the Sātyakīrtas say: ‘As to the Angel whom we worship, of him we say that there is one aspect in the cow, another in beasts of burden (horses), another in the elephant, another in man (*puruṣa*), another in all existences; such is the Angel’s omni-aspectuality (*sarvaṃ rūpam*).’ That same single aspect is the Spirit (*prāṇa*).”

c6.4

“Just as little” should be noted, for this is not a pantheistic point of view, it is merely “not anthropocentric.” St. Francis also preached to the birds and fishes, for “the whole creation groaneth and travailleth together.”

c6.5

4 *(page 4)*. A prohibition of this kind is alluded to in Ch. 48 of the *Vinaya* of the Sarvastivādins. See Waley in “Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques,” *Inst. Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises*, I, 1932, 352. Compare Nanda’s refusal to provide biographical material for the representation of the events of the Buddha’s life in a drama, related in the *Kah-gyur* (Schiefner, *Tibetan Tales*, no. xiii). With *tathāgata*, or *tathāgata* cf. *ā agāt*, *Ṛg Veda*, X, 53, 1, with reference to Agni.

c6.6

5 *(page 4)*. That of Strzygowski’s “Mazdean art,” but this is no more Iranian than Indian.

c6.7

6 *(page 4)*. A *cetiya*, as appears from the present text and elsewhere, is not primarily a building, but any object made use of as a sacred symbol or cult object. A shrine in the sense “temple” is *cetiya-ghara*. Cf. my *Yakṣas*, I and II, *passim*, and B. C. Law, “‘Cetiya’ in the Buddhist Literature,” *Studia Indo-Iranica*, 1931, pp. 42-48.

c6.8

7 *(page 4)*. From *paribhoga*, objects used by or in connection with the person; thus equally in the case of the dead or absent person, traces or relics other than any part of the body itself. In the present case, for example, the Buddha’s begging bowl, garments, the tree under which he attained enlightenment, the hut occupied by him; and probably, though more abstractly, such “things” as the wheel which he set in motion in Benares. The *śārīraka* and *pāribhogaka* cetiyas are then precisely those symbols which are alluded to as “traces” (*dhātu*) in the *Saddharma Puṇḍarīka*; the term *dhātu* appearing also in *dhātu-gabba* = *dāgaba* = *thūpa* = *stūpa*, “tope.”

c6.9

8 *(page 8)*. *Ṛg Veda*, I, 24, 7; IV, 13, 5; X, 82, 5 (?); *Atharva Veda*, X, 7, 38; *Chāndogya Up.*, VI, 8, 4; VI, 11, 1; VI, 12, 2; *Śvetāśvatara Up.*, III, 9; *Taittirīya Up.*, I, 10. For the pre-Buddhist tree cults and their survival in Buddhist ritual see my *Yakṣas*, Pts. I and II, Washington, 1928 and 1931, and “Early Indian Architecture, II, Bodhi-gharas,” in *Eastern Art*, III, 1931.

c6.10

9 *(page 8)*. Regarding the “up” or “down” of the roots and branches, it should be observed that this is not a question of local direction: if certain texts say “down” as if from Waters enclosing the *brahmāṇḍa*, and the representations are of upward

c6.11

growth, as if from a given platform of being, both are equally correct, in that the Waters are no less omnipresent substance than the Self is omnipresent essence. There is no question so far of “aerial roots”; these are alluded to only in the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, VII, 31, and *Bhagavad Gītā*, XV, 2, where they are explained as the “bonds of works.”

c6.12

10 (page 8). *Śaṅkarācārya* interprets *rerivā* (*Taittirīya Up.*, I, 10) as either “mover” or “remover” (for the latter implication cf. *Bhagavad Gītā*, XV, 3, *aśvatthaṃ . . . chittvā*): “mover” is most appropriate in our text, but either sense would be intelligible, inasmuch as *pravṛtti* and *nivṛtti*, outflow and inflow, spiration and despiration, are simultaneous movements of the cosmic “pulse” of the Self.

c6.13

Vedic “*yakṣa*,” in its general application to Varuṇa, later Brahman, represents in our view an essential name of the manifested deity as mover in the Tree of Life. 11 (page 10). The tree itself is analogically the Great Awakening, not merely the sign of the place where the Awakening was accomplished, which from the standpoint of the developed Buddhology was not an event in Time. Cf. *pratyabudhyata*, “awakened,” “illuminated,” with reference to angelic, prophetic, or human knowledge of Brahman, whereby the one awakened is identified with That, *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Up.*, I, 4, 10; and *pratibodhaviditaṃ matam amṛtatvaṃ hi vindate, ātmanā vindate vīryaṃ vidyayā vindate amṛtam*, “It (*brahman*) is thought of as known with Awakening, for thus one finds what is deathless; by the Self one finds the virile-strength, by knowledge one finds the Deathless,” *Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa*, IV, 19.

c6.14

Budh is primarily “to awaken,” and metaphysically, from the sleep of potentiality to actuality of operation; in this sense we find in the *Ṛg Veda* not only *uṣarbudh*, but the verbal form *abodhi*, “awakened” (I, 157, 1; III, 5, 1; V, 1, 1; VII, 9, 1), applied to Agni, who is the Enlightener rather than the Enlightened. Hence we prefer to the familiar “Great Enlightenment” the rendering “Great Awakening” for *mahāsambodhi*; and for *bodhi-vṛkṣa*, “Tree of Awakening” to “Wisdom-tree.” If it be desired to retain the notion of illumination, which is inherent in this sense that the awakening is a beginning to shine, it should be with full awareness that the Great Awakening is with reference not only to him who wakes, but also to those on whom he shines. The Mahāsambodhi is in fact the Buddha’s true birth into the worlds, all that precedes properly belonging to the Interior Operation, though developed in the texts quasi-historically.

c6.15

Pali Commentators explain *budh* by *avagamane*, “coming down,” tantamount to *avacaraṇa*, “descent,” cf. *avas caran*, of Agni, *Ṛg Veda*, VI, 9, 3; by *bodhane* “awakening”; and as “to rise up” (*uṭṭhahati, Aṭṭhasālinī*, p. 217: cf. *ud asthāt*, of Agni, *Ṛg Veda*, IV, 18, 5; Sāyaṇa on V, 19, 1, *sthitam padārthajātam*, “*sthā* means to be born”; and *ṭhitako . . . paṭhaviyaṃ paṭiṭṭhāya, Nidānakathā*, p. 53) from the sleep of the kindred of the slime (*kilesa-santāna-niddāya*), or to understand the Four Ariyan Truths, or to realize *Nibbāna.* Here it can be clearly seen how edifying secondary meanings have been given to the root which meant originally to “come into existence,” or “be manifested.” Kilesa (Skr. *kleśa*) has generally in fact a moral value in Pali Buddhism, but the fundamental sense of “slime,” and the involved notion of “germinal heat” (*kilissati* = *upatāpe*, Dhtp., 445 and Dhtm., 686), cf. *kliś*, “to suffer,” and *ciklita* = “slime” in *Śrīsūkta*, 12, and the imagery of the lotus, born in the mud and yet unstained (p. 21), whereas in the *Śrīsūkta*, 11 and 17, we have merely *kardamena prajā sraṣṭā saṃbhūtiṃ gamayāmasi* “we thy children emanated from the mud would go forth into existence.” The force of this compari-

c6.16

sons is to show that the language of Pali Buddhism is inherited directly from Vedic sources, though generally with an ethical in place of the originally metaphysical application. In the *Ṛg Veda*, the Awakening is to Existence, in Buddhism to Non-existence. The contrast is less than might appear at first sight, for the "Turning of the Principial Wheel" has neither beginning nor end (*dharmam deśemy ahu nit-yakālam*, Saddharma Puṇḍarīka, XV, 1, or as *Ṛg Veda*, V, 58, 5 expresses it, "none of the spokes is last in order"); Dawn and Sunset, Life and Death, follow each other in unending sequence, and from the standpoint of the Understanding of Sameness (*samatājñāna*) this is not really a sequence but an act in simultaneity.

c6.17

12 *(page 10)*. On tejas in Buddhism see J. Ph. Vogel, "Het Sanskrit woord tejas (= gloed, vuur) in de beteeknis van magische kraft," *Med. K. Akad. Wet., afd. Letterkunde*, 70, B, 4, Amsterdam, 1930. An error should be corrected here, viz. p. 107 and Pl. II, for the occasion of "Indra's visit" the Buddha's grotto is illuminated, not by his own *tejas*, but by that of the visiting angels, as expressly stated in *Dīgha Nikāya*, II, 264 and 269. *Tejas* as one of the "five elements" (e. g. in *Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad*, VI, 2) corresponds to "phlogiston," Böhme's "ignited air."

c6.18

13 *(page 10)*. Also Fergusson, *Tree and Serpent Worship*, Pl. LXVII, mid-left, and LXX, top-centre and mid-right; Bachhofer, *Early Indian Sculpture*, Pl. 114, left-centre.

c6.19

14 *(page 10)*. The fiery pillars are mentioned by Kramrisch, *Indian Sculpture*, 1933, note 209. The importance of the fiery element in Buddhist symbolism was recognized by Maisey, *Sanchi and its Remains*, 1892, Ch. X, and later by Foucher and Vogel in connection with the representation of shoulder-flames, the double miracle, etc. I have argued elsewhere (*A New Approach to the Vedas*, 1933, p. 43) that Agni Vaiśvānara, Christ, the idea of Muḥammad, and others, are ontologically identical Persons. The historical narrative of the Buddha's "life," for example, like that of the Christ's, must be regarded as a contraction or reflection of the cosmic relations; the Buddha is an incarnation of Agni. Assuming that an historical Gautama may really have taught, the mere "man" is altogether hidden by the aegis of divinity, and surely would have willed it to have been so.

c6.20

15 *(page 10)*. In *Ṛg Veda*, I, 59, 1 and 2, Agni is "a pillar (*sthūṇa*) supporting the kindreds" (*janān*, viz. angels and men); in IV, 13, 5, "established as an angelic pillar (*skambha*) he rules-and-wards (*pāti*) the firmament" (*nāka*, that Middle Space, *antarikṣa*, in which all existence is extended); *ibid.*, X, 5, 6, "He is a pillar (*skambha*) of life at the parting of the ways"; *ibid.*, V, 29, 4, "Heaven and Earth he pillars-apart" (*vitaram viṣkabhāyat*). That axis of the Universe is also, as stated explicitly in *ibid.*, X, 89, 4, the axle-tree of the Solar Car, "by the axle of his wheeled car he indeed by his powers pillars-apart Heaven and Earth" (*akṣeṇeva cakriyā śacībhir viṣvak tastambha pṛthivīm uta dyām*). In *Atharva Veda*, X, 8, 2, the pillar (*skambha*) is "all that is hypostasized" (*sarvam ātmanvat*), and the entire hymn, X, 7, lauds the same pillar wherein all existence (*bhuvana*) is infixed (*arpitā*); this axis of the Universe (which is also the axle-tree of the Solar Car and the trunk of the Tree of Life), though single in its proper form (*svarūpa*, Dante's *forma universal*, Paradiso, XXXIII, "one simple Light, that in its depths encloses, as in a single volume, all that is scattered on the pages of the Universe)," is also the form of very different things (*viśvarūpa*). The Scholastic notion of exemplarism is implied, cf. Eckhart, I, 182, "Everything is pictured in His Providence," which corresponds again to the notion of the world-picture, "painted by the Self on the canvas of the Self," Śaṅkarācārya, *Svātmanirūpaṇa*, 95.

c6.21

The axis of the Universe is coincident also with the fiery Śiva-liṅgam set up, according to the Devadāruvana legend, in the foundations of the Earth (Hāṭaka, the Land of Gold, see p. 531) and extending upwards to Heaven, see F. D. K. Bosch, “Het Linga-Heiligdom van Dinaja,” *Tijdschr. K. Bat. Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschapen*, LXIV, 1924. The axis in its most general aspect corresponds to the vertical of the Cross, as to which, and for further details of application, see M. René Guénon’s admirable treatise, *La Symbolisme de la Croix*, Paris, 1931.

c6.22

16 *(page 10)*. Also Fergusson, *Tree and Serpent Worship*, cut on p. 114. At the very summit of the jewelled tree, hardly visible in the reproductions, is represented a royal umbrella, comparable to those which are seen above contemporary more realistically depicted Bodhi-trees, or stood over the early anthropomorphic Buddha images, and to the more elaborate baldachins of Far Eastern art. Considering the symbol of royalty above, and the marks of the *dharmacakra* on the feet, it could not have been more clearly asserted, “This is the anointed King of the Word.”

c6.23

17 *(page 10)*. The formula is not remote from that employed in the representations of the Tree of Life in Assyrian art, cf. for example *Propyläen Kunstgeschichte*, II, Pls. 498, 499.

c6.24

18 *(page 12)*. Māra, Will-spirit, Kāmadeva, angel of love and death, Vedic Gandharva (whose “daughters” are three forms of the Vedic Apsaras), is the indwelling Yakṣa of the Tree itself. It is at the foot of the tree that any Yakṣa has his seat or altar (cf. my *Yakṣas*, I, Pl. 20, lower-left), where his presence is to be inferred or may be manifested in an image made with hands. So when the Bodhisattva takes his seat at the foot of the Wisdom-tree “with his back to its trunk,” *bodhikhandam piṭṭhito*, J., I, 71, he is trespassing on Māra’s ground, and Māra naturally lays claim to and defends the throne as his by right, as well he may, who is the “first born of the angels,” the Will to Life, Eros, *causa causans* of the world, prime mover of the Tree, autonomous in the realm of existence, inasmuch as all existences live-dependent-on (*upaǰvanti*) their such-and-such desired ends (*Chāndogya Up.*, VIII, 1, 5).

c6.25

It should be observed that the “Awakening” of the *Ṛg Veda* is from potentiality to act and with respect to works; while in the Upaniṣads and Buddhism, the “Awakening” is from activity to understanding, and towards a cutting off of the will to experience. These opposite points of view, though both at one and the same time inherent in the ultimate reality, correspond to those from which, on the one hand, the Tree of Life is regarded as a manifestation to be fostered, and, on the other, as one to be cut off. The conflict is precisely between those principles which are represented by Māra and Buddha; who however opposite in nature are one in essence, and therefore at one beyond experience where “all principles are same.” Cf. the characteristic Mahāyāna text *saṃsāraṃ caiva nirvāṇaṃ manyante tattvadarśinaḥ*, “Those who have vision of the Quiddity do not distinguish between the Vortex of Life and the Extinction” (*Cittaviśuddhi*, attributed to Āryadeva, see H. Shastri in JASB., LXVII, p. 178).

c6.26

In Christian terms, *saṃsāra* is “storm of the world-flow” (Eckhart, I, 192).

c6.27

19 *(page 12)*. As the *Saṃyutta Nikāya*, IV, 102, very correctly expresses it, “even the king of the Angels (*devānām inda*) is not emancipated so long as there remains in him any occasion of existence,” and this must hold for the Buddha himself, “Angel of Angels” (*devātideva*), whose *nibbāṇa* is by definition *sa-upādi-sesa*.

c6.28

Will is the cause of existence (*Ṛg Veda*, X, 129, 4; *Mahābhārata*, III, 313, 98, *kāmaḥ saṃsārahetuḥ*); Buddhism makes its goal not the *saṃsāra*, but *nissaraṇa*. A

c6.29

Jātaka preserved only in a Chinese text, but illustrated at Mathurā, has for its motif that "existence is the worst of all evils" (Foucher in JBORS., 1920, pp. 47-53, Vogel, *La Sculpture de Mathurā*, Pl. XVI, a).

c6.30

Those who attempt to show that Buddhism does *not* teach the extinction of all desire miss the point: that Bodhisattvas and those like them are moved by what we believe are *right* desires, commendable ambitions, concerns the Way, and not the Goal. The very fact that the Buddha speaks to "others" reminds us that "whiles we are on the way to God we have not gotten him." All traditions as to the last death of the soul are in agreement that that is a total death with respect to all self-willing and self-thinking: "prudence (*adhyavasāya*), conception (*saṃkalpa*), and notion of I-and-mine (*abhimāna*)," *Maitri Up.*, VI, 30, must be destroyed, the "last way" (*parama-gati*) implying a state of "de-mentation" (*amanībhāva*) and a "self-naughting" (*nirabhimāna*), ibid., VI, 30 and 34. Our resistance to these points of view, our reluctance to admit that Nirvāṇa implies a super-individual existence, Parinirvāṇa a total release from existence, is purely sentimental; actually, existence of any kind is being in a mode, therefore indigent and uninfinite, less than the *summum bonum*. On "de-mentation" see also note 128.

c6.31

20 (*page 12*). On the other hand, we must not be disconcerted if these distinctions are not always rigidly maintained; they are, in fact, "logical, not real." Buddhahood is virtually, if not actually, Parinirvāṇa; God is virtually Godhead; the *jñāna*- and *svabhāva*- aspects of the Dharmakāya are not divided.

c6.32

21 (*page 13*). According to the well-known Aupaniṣada aphorism, the Ultimate Reality is "Not so, not so"; cf. Böhme, "God is properly to be spoken of as No Thing," Dante, *Convivio*, III, 15, "Things which our intellect cannot behold . . . we cannot understand what they are except by denying things of them," and Maimonides, *Guide for the Perplexed*, I, 59, "By affirming anything of God you are removed from Him." Hence the Buddha's refusal to discuss Nirvāṇa.

c6.33

22 (*page 14*). Cf. also my "Notes on Indian Coins and Symbols," *Ostas. Zeitschr.*, N. F. IV, 1927/28, pp. 180, 181.

c6.34

23 (*page 14*). The vajra of iconography represents the axis with its two three-pointed ends. Comparison of *Ṛg Veda*, I, 51, 10, and I, 121, 12, gives us the synonymy *vajra* = *sahasa*, "strength": in the former passage, it is by the "strength" found by Kāvya Uśanā ("the Poetic Will") that Indra with strength holds Heaven and Earth apart (*rodasī vi bādhate* — Sāyaṇa glosses *vibādhate* by *te bibhīte*, a *ity arthah*, "are afraid," an interpretation to be correlated with *abībhatsata* and *te vyadravatām* in *Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa*, I, 50, and 54). Indra is here acting instead of or on behalf of Agni, whose function it is to divide or pillar-apart (*viṣkabh*, etc.) Heaven and Earth throughout the Cosmic Day, and is often called the "Son of Strength," *sahasas putraḥ* or *sūnuh*. Thus *sahasas pūtra* = *akṣa-ja* = *vajra*, and we have proof that the *vajra* originally represented "Fire"; and at the same time another link between Agni and the Buddha, with his "adamantine" nature.

c6.35

24 (*page 14*). The sacrificial post as a *vajra* is eight-angled, "for the attainment of all desires" (*aṣṭaśrir*, *Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa*, X, 1), which form might be expected in connection with (1) the notion of eight directions meeting at a common centre, and (2) the known prevalence of eight-sided pillar forms in early Indian art, cf. *aṭṭhaṃsā sukatā thambhā*, *Jātaka*, VI, 173. Cf. descriptions of Figs. 3, 13.

c6.36

Account should also be taken of the history of the "thunderbolt" in Western Asiatic iconography, see Jacobsthal, *Der Blitz in der orientalischen und griechischen*

c6.37

Kunst, Berlin, 1906; Jacobsthal's Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, for example, depict single, bifurcated "vajras."

c6.38

25 (page 16). Indraji, "Antiquarian Remains at Sopārā and Padaṇa," J. Bombay Br. R.A.S., XV, 320 and Pl. 3.

c6.39

26 (page 16). "Notes on Indian Coins and Symbols," loc. cit.

c6.40

27 (page 18). E. g. at Bhitargaon, Cunningham, A.S.I. Reports, XI, 1880, Pl. XVII; at Bādāmī, Mem. A.S.I., XXV, Pls. XI and XXIIa; also at Elūrā, in the Daśavatāra cave.

c6.41

28 (page 18). Temple, "Notes on Antiquities from Ramannadesa," Indian Antiquary, 1894, also Ray, Brahmanical Gods in Burma, 1932, Pls. 4, 5, cf. Kak, Ancient Monuments of Kashmir, 1933, Fig. 39.

c6.42

The Birth of Brahmā compositions (as well as older representations of lotus forms arising from a Yakṣa's navel) are very like, and may be the source of, the Tree of Jesse formula which appears in Christian art towards the close of the eleventh century; the example which forms a pulpit panel in the Church of S. Leonardo at Arcetri may be cited as showing very clearly the equivalence of western Rose and eastern Lotus, the Mother of God, who is the central flower on the stem that rises from the navel of the recumbent Jesse, corresponding to the Indian Māyā-Lakṣmī; see my "The Tree of Jesse and Indian Parallels or Sources," Art Bulletin, XI, 1929, and further discussion in Parnassus, Jan. 1935.

c6.43

29 (page 18). Cf. Dante, Paradiso, XXX, 116, 117, quant'è la larghezza di questa rosa nell' estreme foglie?

c6.44

30 (page 18). Vasiṣṭha: Ṛg Veda, VII, 33, 11, cf. Bṛhad Devatā, V, 154-155, Nirukta, V, 14, Sarvānukramaṇī, I, 166. Agni: Ṛg Veda, VI, 16, 13. Atharva Veda, X, 8, 34, where the Year- or World-wheel is supported by a lotus, will be discussed later. Another version of the same myths is represented in the legend of Purūravas and Urvaśī, and their son Āyus. In each case we are concerned with a primordial trinity of Father (Mitra-Varuṇa, Heaven), Mother (Urvaśī, Earth), and Son (Vasiṣṭha, Agni, Āyus, Life) of God. Identification of Agni Vaiśvānara with Vasiṣṭha and Āyus is further implied by Atharva Veda, X, 8, 20, where the expression "churned, or rubbed, forth" (nirmanthate), appropriate to Agni, is used with reference to Vasu (= Agni or Vasiṣṭha), and Ṛg Veda, I, 31, 5, I, 67, 5, I, 68, 3, etc., where Agni is spoken of as "Single Life" or "Universal Life" (ekāyu, viśvāyu). Our present concern is with the ontological equivalence of the Buddha with Agni, Āyus, etc.; we have already recognized the Buddha in the form of a fiery pillar supported by a lotus, and seen that this corresponds to a Vedic image of Agni.

c6.45

Note that in Bṛhad Devatā, V, 154, puṣkare sthitaḥ need not mean "standing up in the Lotus," but rather "insistent in the Lotus," sthitaḥ being virtually the same as pratiṣṭhaḥ. Just as in Bṛhadāraṇyaka Up., II, 3, 1, sthitaḥ, applied to the mūrta Brahman, i. e. Brahmā, means "existent," and as sthitaḥ is used in the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka to express that the Buddha is still living, not yet Wholly Extinguished. Similarly, sthāyitā, "persistence," "continued subsistence," is used is used of the relative immortality of the "angels with respect to works," such as Indra. Sthitaḥ is thus by no means contrary to padmāsana; in the Bhagavad Gītā, XI, 15, Brahmā is kamalāsana-sthaḥ, that is "present," "born," or "manifested"—not "standing"—on a lotus-throne. Cf. my New Approach to the Vedas, 1933, note 111 (sthā is existare, or as Sāyaṇa says, "to be born").

c6.46

“Earliest references” is said with respect to Indian sources. The texts cited from the *Rg Veda* can scarcely postdate 1000 B.C., a conservative estimate, not to mention that the Vedas represent an already late and sophisticated tradition. In Egypt, Ḥeru-pa-khart (Harpocrates), the child Horus, son of Isis and Osiris, image of ever-young and self-regenerating life, is represented as lotus-born and lotus-supported throughout the Ptolemaic period, i. e. from about 900 B.C. onwards. See E. W. Budge, *The Gods of the Egyptians*, I, opp. p. 484, and *Book of the Dead*, Papyrus of Ani, Pl. 28; *Catalogue général du Musée de Cairo*, XXIX, Pl. XI, items 38, 221 and 222; *Illustrated London News*, January 21, 1933, p. 84. A head of Tutankhemen supported by a lotus has been interpreted as representing him as “the young Sun-god emerging from a lotus flower which sprang out of the primeval waters when creation took the place of chaos” (*Illustrated London News*, May 23, 1931). See further A. Moret, “Le Lotus et la Naissance des Dieux en Egypte,” *Journal Asiatique*, May, 1917. The conception of Horus goes back at least to the New Empire (nineteenth century B.C.), but there is no evidence for the representation of the child in or on a lotus until later. Lotus forms are said to appear in Mesopotamian art “only with the pressure of Egyptian influences, from the middle of the second millennium” (B.C. onwards), Andrae, *Coloured Ceramics from Ashur*, p. 5; but Indian sources would be equally conceivable. We can only assert that lotus symbolism must date back at least to the second millennium B.C., without being able to determine its precise origins.

c6.47

31 (page 19). For they are of mutual origin, *anyonyayonitā*, *itarātarajanmānā*, *Bṛhad Devatā*, I, 71, and *Nirukta*, VII, 4. The trinity of the Several Angels who are thus of one and the same sphere and birth (*sālokyatva*, *ekajātatva*, *Bṛhad Devatā*, I, 98) corresponds to those numerous Buddha trinities in which the Buddha stands between two Bodhisattvas, supported by three several lotuses springing from a common stem, which rises from the Waters.

c6.48

32 (page 19). I. e. Agni as First Principle is embodied as Agni Vaiśvānara, the “Distributive Fire” “grandson of the Waters.”

c6.49

33 (page 19). By no means necessarily in the terrestrial mode; in fact, the lotus is generally employed to denote a universal, or at least angelic, existence.

c6.50

That the “Earth” is not merely our terrestrial land, but any “ground” of life (cf. Böhme, “even thy own earth, that is thy body”; *puṇḍarīka* as human body, e. g. in *Atharva Veda*, X, 8, 43, *puṇḍarīkaṃ navadvāram . . . tasmin yad yakṣam ātmanat tad vai brahmavido viduḥ*, “the lotus of nine gates, what Self-ish Genius is therein, that only the Comprehensors of the Brahman know,” where *yakṣas*, as usually in the Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads, = Brahman; and *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*, III, 12, 3, “what this earth is, that is the same as what the body in man here is . . . the heart, whereon are established, *pratiṣṭhata*, the breaths of life”), is clearly recognized by Sāyaṇa, commenting on *Rg Veda*, VI, 16, 13, where he says “Earth is the support of existences in every world” (*bhūmiśca sarvajagata ādhārabhūtēti*), cf. *pṛthivī* used in the dual or plural to denote the Two Worlds or Three Worlds, *Rg Veda*, *passim*, e. g. I, 108, 9 and 10, VII, 104, 11, X, 59, 4.

c6.51

³⁴ (page 19). Vasiṣṭha, primarily an aspect of Agni (as was recognized by Siecke, *Liebesgeschichte des Himmels*, 1892, p. 73), is also rightly identified with Prajāpati and Dakṣa, *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, II, 4, 4, 2, and called a Prajāpati, *Mānava Dharmaśāstra*, I, 34. Prajāpati is Brahmā, *padma-ja*; cf. *Bhāgavata Purāṇa*, III, 20, 15–16, “From the navel of the lord sprang up a lotus, resplendent as a thousand suns, the

c6.52

abode of all living things (sarva-jīva-nikāya) where the Ruling Power (svarāj) himself of himself came to be (svayam abhūt, cf. "svayambhū = Brahmā)." It may be observed that svayambhū, characterizing Prajāpati as demiurge, corresponds to the conception of Agni as "self-lighted" (agninā agniḥ samidhyate, Ṛg Veda, I, 12, 6): and this idea in the Ṛg Veda, where Agni is typically punar punar jayamānaḥ, "constantly reborn," underlies the Buddhist comparisons of rebirth as the lighting of one flame by another without "individual" identity of the substance enflamed.

c6.53

35 (page 20). Summarized more fully, "the lotus-leaf is a basis (pratiṣṭhā), for it is this earth (pṛthivī), and earth is a basis . . . this same earth is Agni's womb (yoni) . . . one who is not thus supported (pratiṣṭho na bhavati), he is as it were unsupported in a far country." Cf. the epithet supratiṣṭhapāda, "with firm-based feet," applied to the Sambhogakāya Buddha, Maitreya-Asaṅga, Uttaratantra, II, 16, where it may be taken for granted that the Buddha is understood to be lotus-seated. Cf. J., I, 53, paṭhaviyaṃ patiṭṭhāya, "standing on the ground," corresponding to the iconography of the Nativities, in which the infant Bodhisattva is usually represented as standing on a lotus.

c6.54

In connection with the phrase "extended on the back of the Waters" it should be noted that some of the commonest designations of "Earth," e. g. pṛthivī, urvī, uttānā, imply precisely "extension," and further that it is expressly stated that the extent of Earth is necessarily equal to that of Heaven, for the Sun, though represented on earth by Fire, cannot be thought of as confined, "for he fills all these worlds" (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, VIII, 7, 2, 1 and X, 5, 2, 8).

c6.55

36 (page 20). In the older texts we find simply puṣkara, "lotus," which may imply the whole plant or only the flower. In Atharva Veda, X, 8, 34, the flower is specifically mentioned (apām puṣpam); in Maitri Up., VI, 2, cited above, the mention of petals implies "flower," as do the later terms padma-kośa and padma-garbha. In any case, the expanded flower is the immediate support, though the whole plant, consisting of stem, leaves, and flower, is often represented. In Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa, IV, 3, the "flowers of aeviternity" (amṛtasya puṣpāṇi) are no doubt lotuses.

c6.56

37 (page 20). It is by no means intended to assert that the chthonic basis of existence can be or is only indicated by the Lotus. On the contrary, the Earth may be represented by the spirits of the Earth, viz. the Guhyaka Yakṣas, or Bhumma Devas, cf. my Yakṣas, I, 8, my HIIA., Figs. 38, 66, and the Yakushi Buddha pedestal described below. Or various animals may be the supporting bases of angelic beings, their "vehicles"; or the ground may be represented simply by a plane surface or platform.

c6.57

In Ṛg Veda, VII, 88, 3 and 4, by a closely related image, the support of Vasiṣṭha in the Waters is called a ship (nau), wherein he, Varuṇa's Son, appointed Prophet (ṛṣi), rides gladly with Varuṇa in mid-ocean "when first the heavens were spread out and dawns outstrung," that is when time began, the ship of life left port, the Flower of the Waters showed above the waves. That image of a ship wherein the Universal Man and Progenitor sails upon the Waters is clearly an aspect of the Vedic devayāna and pitṛyāna, and corresponds to Manu's voyage in an ark (nau) in the Indian form of the Flood Legend; and provides an archetype for all that Buddhist imagery of a voyage across the sea of life which is implied in the terms Hinayāna and Mahāyāna, the Lesser and the Greater "Voyage" (not, as generally translated, "Vehicle"), which are at the same time one and the same voyage, Ekayāna. The Lotus is the

c6.58

vehicle of life: for him who understands (*vidvān*) bearing him on toward a known port, but for the foolish (*avid*) storm-driven to an unknown landfall. Cf. *Rg Veda*, VIII, 42, 3, and 72, 3.

c6.59

38 (page 20). In the present monograph we have not emphasized the distinction of Upper (*para*) from Nether (*apara*) Waters, representing respectively the possibilities of existence “above” and “below,” in yonder world and this world, Heaven and Earth. It may, however, be remarked that the Lotus nearly always appears in the glory or nimbus (*prabhā-maṇḍala*) of the Buddha and other celestial figures (cf. Fig. 36) of the Buddha or other angelic figures; the two flowers, one behind the “head,” the other beneath the “feet,” and each a reflection of the other, representing the “grounds” (*pṛthivī*) of existence *in extenso* (*rājasika, antarikṣe*) between them. Cf. *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, IV, I, 5, 16, “Agni is verily the lotus of this Earth, the Sun the lotus of yonder Sky”: and *ibid.*, VII, 1, 1, 24, Upper and Nether Waters.

c6.60

39 (page 21). The version of Caland, *Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa*, 1931, p. 494, is too specific: *nakṣatra* in the plural need not mean only “stars,” cf. *Rg Veda*, X, 55, 4, where the first of lights (*vibhānām*, glossed by Sāyaṇa as *grahanakṣatrādīnām*) by its shining brings to birth (*ajanayaḥ*) the *puṣṭasya puṣṭam*, tantamount to the *apāṃ puṣpam* of *Atharva Veda*, X, 8, 34. Nor need *avakāśa* imply a light shining only at night; Caland himself cites *Mānava Gṛhyasūtra*, II, 1, 5, where *avakāśa* = “at daybreak.”

c6.61

40 (page 21). Apart from this hermeneutic etymology, the more strictly correct derivation of *puṣkara* is from root *puṣ*, to grow or increase, be nourished, etc., cf. *Rg Veda*, X, 55, 4, where *puṣṭasya puṣṭam*, “the amplitude of increase” or “growth of growth,” which is brought forth by Dawn, is tantamount to *puṣkara*, the World-Lotus rising from the Waters at the dawn of creation, just as the day-lotus opens at sunrise in actual experience. Cf. Yāska, *Nirukta*, V, 14, *puṣkaram antarikṣam*, *poṣati bhūtāni*, “The Lotus is mid-space, it propagates beings,” and *Viṣṇu Purāṇa*, I, 8, 23, *padmā svadhā śāśvatapuṣṭidā*, “The Lotus-lady is intrinsic power, the constant giver of increase.”

c6.62

41 (page 22). *Śrī*, “glory,” “beauty,” in the *Rg Veda*, is constantly an “attribute” of Agni; *lakṣmī*, “auspicious sign,” is mentioned only once. In the Brāhmaṇas, Upaniṣads, and later, Śrī-Lakṣmī is usually one angel (*devī*) and corresponds to the Vedic Apsaras, and other aspects of Aditi. The description of Śrī-Lakṣmī in the *Śrī-sūkta*, of Brāhmaṇa-Upaniṣad period, corresponds in all respects with the iconographic formula as found in Early Indian art (see my “Early Indian Iconography,” II, in *Eastern Art*, I, 1928); here again the close connection is with Agni (Jātavedas). The following is abbreviated and condensed from the full text as given by Scheftelowitz, *Apokryphen des Rgveda*, 1906, pp. 72-79: “Who is gladdened by elephants . . . bathed by elephant-kings, with golden vessels (*gajendrair . . . snāpitā hemakumbhair*) . . . Mother Śrī (cf. Sirimāta at Bharhut) . . . the lush, in the lotus lake, the pillar (*yaṣṭi*), golden . . . we, thy children, coming forth from the mire (*kardamena prajā sraṣṭā*, cf. the human body as “*puṇḍarīka*”), have proceeded to existence . . . Lotus-faced, lotus-shouldered (*padma-ūrū*), lotus-eyed, lotus-born, darling of Viṣṇu . . . Mahālakṣmī, lotus-wonted . . . set down thy lotus-foot within my heart (*hṛdi saṃ ni dhatsva*).” The cult of Siri-devatā is referred to in *Milindapañha*, 191, her followers being spoken of as *bhaktas*.

c6.63

Lakṣā (Śrī, Lakṣā, listed amongst the *brahmavādinī*, or feminine seers, in *Bṛhad Devatā*, II, 84) is evidently synonymous with Lakṣmī.

c6.64

42 (page 22). See my "Early Indian Iconography, II, Śrī-Lakṣmī," *Eastern Art*, I, 1929; "Notes on Indian Coins and Symbols," *Ostas. Zeitschr.*, N.F., IV, 1927/28; and "Archaic Indian Terracottas," *Ipek*, 1928, Figs. 25, 30.

c6.65

43 (page 22). "Images indiennes de la Fortune," *Mem. conç. l'Asie Orientale*, I, 1913; and "The Buddhist Madonna" (in *The Beginnings of Buddhist Art*, 1917).

c6.66

44 (page 22). Lakṣmī's own "lotus-birth" is thus not exactly the same thing as Agni's or Vasiṣṭha's, for she is the Lotus as well as Siri-mata; mother, not sister, of all those whose coming to be is from a lotus-womb, *abja-yoni*. It may be noted that Lakṣmī as Goddess of Fortune consistently preserves her fickle *apsaras* character, reminiscent of Urvaśī; it is only as the Earth, as Bhūmi-devī, that she stands firm.

c6.67

45 (page 22). In *Ṛg Veda*, I, 164, 8, if we accept the interpretation of Sāyaṇa, we have "the germ (*garbha*) was in the cloud" (*vṛjanī*); but it would be more natural to take *vṛjanī* as "holy site," *hortus inclusus* (cf. *vrajah* . . . *sapariśrayah*, *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Up.*, VI, 4, 23, where cosmic analogies are applied to human generation). In any case, the Mother (Earth) is here associated (*yukta*) with the Father (Heaven) and it is made quite clear that she is fertilized by an essence that can only have fallen from Heaven as rain; "she the shy one was penetrated by the tincture (*rasa*)," cf. *Ṛg Veda*, VII, 101, 3, "The Father's juices (*payah*) grasped (*prati-gṛhṇāti*) the Mother, thereby are increased both Father and Son," *Ṛg Veda*, I, 164, 51, "the rain-clouds (*parjanyāḥ*) animate (*jinvanti*) the Earth," and similar passages. It is the descent of the rasa-bearing rains that is represented in the Gaja-Lakṣmī composition, which is rather a Conception than a Nativity. But that Conception, being of Life universally, may well have been thought of as Siddhārtha's, whose name signifies "Accomplishment of Purpose." The notion of impregnation by a cloud or rain is present even in the more familiar Buddhist Conceptions, where the Bodhisattva descends in the form of a white elephant, though this is rationalized by calling it a "dream." Cf. the elephant Paccaya, of sky-faring descent, connatural rain-giving talisman of the Bodhisattva in the *Vessantara Jātaka*, which is certainly not a tale of human happenings (incidentally, *vessa* = *viśva* rather than *vaiśya*; the "*vessa-street*" is not the merchant's street, but "Everyman's Way").

c6.68

The Gaja-Lakṣmī composition further corresponds (1) to Christian Annunciations, where the descent of the Spirit is indicated by rays of the Supernal Sun, and by the Dove (birds, *suparṇa*, representing also in Vedic symbolism, e. g. I, 35, 7, and I, 164, 47, rays of the Sun), and (2) to Danae's conception of Perseus, if we substitute for the Sun, Agni with his golden seed.

c6.69

In Buddhist legend, the Nativity has been so far rationalized that no great stress is laid on virgin birth, though both conception and birth are in other respects miraculous. As to the virgin birth, "on n'a jamais cru que Çâkyamouni fût né des œuvres de Çuddhodana," de la Vallée Poussin, *Le Dogme et la Philosophie du Bouddhisme*, p. 57, and his notes. Indian tradition, however, knows a virginity of the Mother, Aditi, calling her *anarvā*, *apravitā*, *kumārī*, *mātā yuvatī*, *kanyā*, *yoṣā*, etc. An ultimate "virginity" of both parents is indeed a metaphysical necessity, for the twin poles of being, the unmoving centres of the Principal and World Wheels, act only by their presence and not by local movement: "He" is undiminished by his largesse, "She" by her parturition.

c6.70

⁴⁶ (page 23). The analogous lustration of Siddhārtha by two Nāgas, genii of the nether waters, is represented on the well-known stele from Sārnāth, see Foucher, *Beginnings of Buddhist Art*, Pl. XIX, Fig. 1, lower-left panel.

c6.71

47 (page 23). On this meaning of Māyā see my “On Translation: māyā, deva, tapas,” in *Isis*, No. 54, 1933.

c6.72

48 (page 23). The name Māyā-devī occurs in *Dīgha Nikāya*, II, 7; Mahā-Māyā in the *Nidānakathā* (J., I, 52 etc). That the name of Māyā-devī’s sister, co-wife of Suddhodana, should have been Pajāpatī is equally significant; as remarked by de la Vallée Poussin, *Le Dogme et la Philosophie du Bouddhisme*, 1930, p. 188, “Jamais femme indienne s’est nommée Māyā . . . Mahāpājāpatī n’est pas non plus un nom.”

c6.73

The various accounts of the Buddha’s birth are conveniently assembled in Windisch, *Buddha’s Geburt*, Leipzig, 1908.

c6.74

In the *Buddhacarita*, I, 16–18, Māyā is *uttama devatā*, which may be freely rendered “Queen of Heaven,” and as regards her earthly being, is said to have “abandoned, in accordance with the Law (*dharma*), her subtle nature (*sūkṣmām prakṛtim*).”

c6.75

Māyā-devī who bears and her sister Pajāpatī who fosters the Bodhisattva correspond in fact to the Vedic sisters Night and Day, the two mothers of Agni, cf. *Ṛg Veda*, I, 95, 1, “Two of unlike aspect, each in succession cherishes the Babe,” III, 55, 4 “One mother bears, another cherishes the Calf,” and V, 2, 2, the *mahiṣī* and *peṣī* as mother and nurse. Māyā-devī corresponds also to Aditi, Indra’s mother whose death is caused by his birth full-grown from her side, *pārśvāt tiraścatā*, *Ṛg Veda*, IV, 18, see Sieg, *Sagenstoffe des Ṛgveda*, Stuttgart, 1902, 76 f. It may be noteworthy that the name of the seer of this hymn is Vāmadeva Gautama (*gautama* being patronymic, as in the Buddha’s case), to whom also there is attributed a lateral birth from his mother’s side, this birth taking place in a wood (*vana*, cf. Lumbinī-vana), as related in Sāyaṇa’s introduction to *Ṛg Veda*, IV, 18. It may be remarked that in *Jātaka*, I, 52, Māyā-devī is already on her way to Devadaha, her ancestral home, when the child is born in the Lumbini grove, which was common ground to the people of both cities, Kapilavatthu and Devadaha. Now *devadaha* = *devahrada*, “angel-pool,” and must surely be the same as the *hrada* or *śaiśava* of the Sarasvatī which is “as far from here as Heaven” (*Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa* XXV, 10, 12–18), and is the same “source” as that in which the aged Cyavāna was restored to youth by the Aśvins (*apaḥ*, ibid., XIV, 6, 10, *hrada*, *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, IV, 1, 5, 12, *śaiśava*, *Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa*, III, 120 and 125 expanding *Ṛg Veda*, I, 116, 10), likewise Varuṇa’s abode “at the source of the rivers of life,” *sindhūnām upodaye*, *Ṛg Veda*, VIII, 41, 2, the Fountain of Life (*utsa*, *Ṛg Veda*, passim). That the Bodhisattva is conscious, and speaks, while yet in the womb is anticipated also in the *Ṛg Veda* with respect to Agni, Indra, Gandharva. Correspondences of this kind could be cited without end; cf. my *Ṛg Veda as Land-náma-bók*, London, 1935.

c6.76

49 (page 23). In metaphysical formulation, lateral procession is an inevitable concept; the branches of the tree, or arms of the cross, proceeding from the vertical laterally. Cf. also the origin of Eve from Adam’s side; and the Caesarian birth of Rustam.

c6.77

50 (page 23). *Megha*, from root *migh* = *mih*, to sprinkle, micturate, emit; cf. *mīḷhuṣa*, outpouring, bountiful, applied to Varuṇa and Agni, *Ṛg Veda*, passim (VII, 88, 1; IV, 5, 1, etc.).

c6.78

51 (page 23). *Anguttara Nikāya*, I, 145 (III, 38).

c6.79

52 (page 24). Omicron, *Letters from Paulos*, 1920, p. 219.

c6.80

53 (page 24). Just as in mediaeval Christianity it was asserted again of him who said of himself, “Before Abraham I am,” that “Christ’s birth is eternal.”

c6.81

⁵⁴ (page 25). For the Sārnāth capital see Sahni, *Catalogue of the Museum of Archeology at Sārnāth*, 1914, Pl. IV and p.

c6.82

²⁸ This and corresponding reliefs are further discussed

c6.83

below. Note that from the standpoint of a more metaphysical Buddhology the "first turning of the Wheel" must be thought of as not first eventually, but first primordially, in principio, agre. For the pillared wheel as a representation of the sun, see P. E. Dumont, "The Indic God Aja Ekapād, the One-legged Goat," *J.A.O.S.*, 53, 326 f.

c6.84

55 *(page 25)*. In more detailed exegesis: *Br̥hadāraṇyaka Up.*, I, 5, 15, "Self (*ātman*) the nave (*nābhi*), properties (*vitta*) the felly (*pradhi*); *Śvetāśvatara Up.*, I, 4, "we understand him as with one triple (*trivr̥t*) felly (*nemi*) . . . one mystery (*moha*) dually manifested (*dvinimitta*)"; *Praśna Up.*, VI, 5 and 6, "on whom the parts (*kalā*) rest firm, like the spokes on the nave (*nābhi*) of a chariot (-wheel), Him I deem the Person to be known."

c6.85

56 *(page 26)*. It is not at all unlikely that the notion of the revolving well-wheel may also be present; cf. citations in my "The Persian Wheel," *J.A.O.S.*, LI, 283.

c6.86

57 *(page 26)*. We do not mean to exclude particular adaptations, as when the *cakra* becomes the "weapon" of a given deity, e. g. Viṣṇu, though even in this case the Wheel could be understood to mean "Time," as a destructive power. The use of the *cakra* as a divine weapon is analogous to the similar use of the *vajra*.

c6.87

Nor is the symbol of the World-wheel by any means exclusively Indian. It is constantly employed, for example, by Dante. It survives even today in the semi-pagan, semi-secular form of the "Wheel of Fortuna." To be "broken on the wheel" represents a form of martyrdom which, like a death on the Cross, is not without its cosmic analogies. We cannot pursue these considerations further here, nor discuss the ultimate origin of the symbol (observe that the *svastika* antedates the wheel), but may remark that the wheel appears also in Greek symbolism, where it is probably of Oriental origin (see Cook, *Zeus*, I, p. 198 f., and Roes, *Greek Geometric Art*, 1933, especially p. 46). Here too the Olympians are "only spokes in the great wheel of nature, not the driving force that sets and keeps her going . . . India and China best help us to the understanding of Dike as the way of the world and also as Right and Justice," J. Harrison, *Themis*, pp. 464 and 523-527, cf. also Jackson in *J.A.O.S.*, XXI, 171, and Kaegi, *Rig Veda*, note 85. Dike = aṣa = ṛta = dharma = tao as "Way."

c6.88

58 *(page 26)*. Most of the confusion which has been introduced into discussions of Nirvāṇa and Parinirvāṇa has arisen from a failure to distinguish between the non-entity of the irrational (viz. *very impossibility of existence*) and the non-existence of the non- or supra-rational (viz. *very possibility of existence*).

c6.89

59 *(page 27)*. *Ekībhūtaḥ prajñāna-ghanaḥ*, *Māṇḍūkya Up.*, 5; *sarūpeṇa jyotiṣā vivratena*, *Ṛg Veda*, X, 55, 3; *viśvam satyam*, II, 24, 12; *viśvam ekam*, III, 54, 8; *sarvadharma-samatā*, SPt. 133, etc.

c6.90

60 *(page 27)*. In many of the early Buddhist Dhammacakkas, the nave or hub (*nābhi*) of the wheel is represented either as an open lotus (petals being indicated) or as the pericarp (*kaṇṇikā*) of a lotus (the characteristic circular marks being shown on its surface). Cf. Śaṅkarācārya's gloss *pr̥thivī-padmamadhye merukarṇikāsanastham* on *kamalāsanastham* qualifying "Brahmā" in *Bhagavad Gītā*, XI, 15; *kaṇṇikā* as the key-plate of a domed roof, the sole support of its rafters, *Jātaka*, III, 317-319; and in connection with these passages, *Ṛg Veda*, I, 35, 6 "as on the chariot's axle-point depend the deathless (principles)," and VIII, 41, 6, "in whom all creative-utterances (*kāvyā*) inhere as does the nave within the wheel."

c6.91

61 (page 27). E. g. I, 9, 2, “Let flow the soma to Indra, the instigator (cakri) to the operator (cakri) of all things (viśvāni)”; III, 16, 4, where Agni, “who conducts (cakri) the offering amidst the Angels, is the maker (cakri) of the several worlds (viśvāni bhuvanā) and has full power over them”; cf. IV, 2, 9, and VIII, 31, 9.

c6.92

62 (page 27). Varuṇa, Indra, etc., are Kṣatriya, so too is the Buddha by birth; he does not think of himself as a “priest,” but as militant. The “Buddha-field” (buddhakṣetra) is at the same time in this sense a “field of battle” and also a trackless wilderness wherein he alone can point out the Way (mārga). In the latter connection we find again the reflection of Vedic concepts of Agni, vidvān pathaḥ pura-etā, Ṛg Veda, V, 46, 1, kṣetravit, ibid., IX, 70, 9, and X, 32, 7 (Indra), niyānam saṃjñānam, X, 19, 4 (in I, 164, 47 niyānam . . . divam ut contrasts with āvṛtran . . . vi ut, in V, 46, 1 vimucam with āvṛtam, hence niyāna = devayāna), etc. In Ṛg Veda, I, 45, 9, the “field” (kṣetra) is the extended world over which the sun passes with his seven horses; ibid., X, 32, 7 those that are not way-wise therein seek to be taught by him that is the knower of the field (akṣetravid kṣetravidam hy aprāt), cf. Majjhima Nikāya, No. 108 “revealed a path until then unrevealed” (asañjātassa maggasa sañjānetā); in the Upaniṣads similarly kṣetra is “world,” e. g. Śvetāśvatara Up., VI, 16, and Maitri Up., II, 5. Agni is typically viśpati, “Lord of the dwellers in this field.”

c6.93

63 (page 28). “The chariot is the Year,” Atharva Veda, VIII, 8, 23.

c6.94

64 (page 28). In making use of the symbol of two wheels, progressive enlightenment must be represented by a simultaneous contraction (con-centration) of the circumference of each (cf. Maitri Up., VI, 1), and by a contraction (con-centration) of the axis, resulting as before in the inconnumerable unity of the single point, viz. Ātman quâ Iśvara, Cakravartin. That is the meeting point of all the spokes, and also the intersection of the arms of the two- or three-armed Cross. Cf. Chuang Tzŭ, II, 3, “When subjective and objective are both without their correlates, that is the very axis of Tao. And when that axis passes through the centre at which all indefinites converge, positive and negative alike blend into an infinite One . . . viewed from the standpoint of Tao, the (horizontal) beam and the (vertical) pillar are identical.” In Giles’ translation I have substituted “Indefinites” for “Infinities.”

c6.95

Where there is a question of three wheels, of which the third is known only to the adept, it will be evident of course that this hidden wheel, of which there is no extension, must be thought of as coincident with the one “point” (intersection of all axes) which represents principally the two manifested wheels.

c6.96

⁶⁵ (page 29). Cf. Dante, Paradiso, XIII, 21-22, punto dello stelo a cui la prima rota va dintorno, and ibid., XVII, 28, and XXVIII, 16 and 41-42; and Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa, I, 3, where the way out of the worlds, by which one “wholly escapes” (atimucyate) (= loka-dvāra in Chāndogya Up., VIII, 6, 6, “I am the Door” in John, x, 9), viz. the “hole in the sky” (divaś chidram), “at the place of meeting in the Sun” (ādityam samayā), is very correctly symbolized by the “space” (kha) of a cart (anas) or chariot (ratha), that is the space at the centre of the wheels, and “that is seen to be all covered over by rays” (raśmi). Cf. St Thomas, STh., III, Q. 91, A. 1, “things belonging to the state of glory are not under the sun.” (My explanation of ratha-chidra in J.A.O.S., LI, 172, should be rejected.)

c6.97

⁶⁶ (page 29). For the opposing points of view in dramatic contrast, cf. Bhagavad Gītā, III, 16-25, and Anugītā, Ch. XXX. The contrast, however, is more apparent than real: what is taught in the Anugītā and in early Buddhism is indeed the stoppage (nissa-

c6.98

raṇa, nivṛtti) of the Bhavacakra, but the real meaning of abstention is better expressed in the Bhagavad Gītā and in later Buddhism as a transformation of action, or perfected facility in action, achieved when the action is performed willingly but not from will.

c6.99

67 (page 30). The Angels whose existence is as yet merely potential are thought of as fearing lest being should not flow out into existence. The fear is needless, since in him potentiality and act are indivisible, he works willy nilly, doing what must be done. That the Buddha remains in seclusion during the period of hesitation corresponds to the occultation of Agni (tamasi kṣeṣy agne, Ṛg Veda, X, 51, 5; sūryaṃ gūḷhaṃ tama-sāpavratena, ibid., V, 40, 6, etc.) antecedent to the dawn of a creative cycle. That seclusion (in Christian terms “interior operation” or “eternal rest,” solus ante principium) is the same as the “pleroma non-revolving” (pūrṇam apravarti) of Kauṣītaki Up., IV, 8.

c6.100

The hesitation corresponds in the life of Christ to the Passion in the Garden of Gethsemane, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me”; and when he adds, “nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt,” that corresponds to Agni, who performs what is required of him (Ṛg Veda, I, 165, 9, kariṣyā kṛṇuhi, VI, 9, 3, vaktvāni vadāti, VII, 20, 1, cakriḥ . . . yat kariṣyan), and the Buddha, who does what must be done (kartavyaṃ karoti, SPt. Ch. XV). This is, technically, “necessitas infallibilitatis.”

First 100 of 207 passages. Read on

Linked texts (60)