A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c6.48

c6.48

¹ It is difficult to find a satisfactory etymology for âtmâ (nomin.), particularly in its older, and possibly more original, form, tmâ. Bopp (Comp. Grammar, i. § 140.) says, “if âtmâ stand for âhmâ, and be derived from a lost root, âh, to think (when it must be remembered that the root nah also changes its final h sometimes into t, upânah and upânat), it might be compared with the Gothic ahma, soul.” This root, âh, is afterwards traced by Bopp in the Sanskrit âha, “he said;” and he observes that to speak and to think are in the Indo-European languages sometimes expressed by one and the same word. The last observation, however, is not quite proved by the example taken by Bopp from the Zend, manthra, speech. For although the Sanskrit mantra is derived from man, to think, it receives its causal meaning by the termination tra, and has therefore the signification of prayer, hymn, advice, speech (i. e. what makes us think). If âtmâ come from a root ah, the meaning of this root is more likely that of breathing, which would account for Gothic ahma (πνεῦμα), as well as for Sanskrit âha, Greek ἦ and ἠχώ, Latin ajo and nego, and similar words. If we derive âtmâ, spirit, soul, self, from this root ah, we may also derive from it a-ham, I (cuneiform inscript. adam, ego, ἐγώ, ich). But there always remains a difficulty as regards the elision of â in the old Vedic form tmâ, instead of âtmâ, and the Zend thmanangh, which, according to Prof. Burnouf’s conjecture, is the Sansk. tmanas (Commentaire sur le Yaśna, p. 509.); a difficulty which neither European etymologists (Pott, Etymologische Forschungen, i. 196.; Benfey, Griechisches Wurzellexicon, i. 265.) nor Indian Uṇâdik scholars (Uṇâdi Sûtras, 4. 152.) have yet explained.