Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory of Government c2: Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory of Government

Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory of Government c2

Language
English

Contents

Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory of Government

c2.1

BY

c2.2

ANANDA K. COOMARASWAMY *Museum of Fine Arts, Boston*

c2.3

AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT

c2.4

*The author and the Society wish to thank Mr. Chauncey Stillman for his contribution toward the publication of this volume.*

c2.5

COPYRIGHT 1942

c2.6

BY AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY

c2.7

MADE IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

c2.8

J. H. FURST COMPANY, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

c2.9

SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY AND TEMPORAL POWER

c2.10

IN THE

c2.12

*Puró . . . agním . . . dadhidhvam*, RV. VI. 10. 1.
*Tásmai víśaḥ svayám evá namante, yásmin brahmâ rājani púrva éti*, RV. IV. 50. 8.
*Bhadrâd abhí śréyaḥ préhi, bŕhaspátir puraetâ te astu*, TS. III. 1. 1. 4.
*Brahma purastān ma ugraṁ rāṣṭram avyathyam asat*, AB. VIII. 1.
*Predaṁ brahma predaṁ kṣatram . . . brahmakṣatrayoḥ saṁśrityai*, AB. III. 11.
*Rājan, satyaṁ param brahma . . . satyaṁ saṁgatam astu te*, Mbh. I. 69. 25 (Poona ed.).¹

c2.13

¹ “Make ye Agni your Fore-man” (Purohita); “To him in whose realm the High Priest goeth foremost, the people of themselves do homage”; “Go on thy way from good to better, Bṛhaspati be thy forerunner!”; “The Spiritual-authority foremost, be my dominion dread and unassailable!”; “Forward the Spiritual-authority, forward the Temporal-power! unto their union”; “Truth, O King, is the Supreme Brahma; be the Truth thy consort.” Abbreviations: *RV*., *Ṛgveda Saṁhitā*; *TS*., *Taittirīya Saṁhitā*; *AV*., *Atharva Veda Saṁhitā*; *VS*., *Vājasaneyi Saṁhitā*; *AB*., *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*; *KB*., *Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa*; *TB*., *Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa*; *PB*., *Pañcaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa*; *JB*., *Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa*; *JUB*., *Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa*; *ŚB*., *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*; *GB*., *Gopatha Brāhmaṇa*; *AA*., *Aitareya Āraṇyaka*; *BD*., *Bṛhad Devatā*; *BU*., *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad*; *CU*., *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*; *KU*., *Kaṭha Upaniṣad*; *TU*., *Taittirīya Upaniṣad*; *MU*., *Maitri Upaniṣad*; *BG*., *Bhagavad Gītā*; *Manu*, *Mānava Dharmaśāstra*; *VP*., *Viṣṇu Purāṇa*; *Mbh*., *Mahābhārata*; *A*., *Aṅguttara Nikāya*; *D*., *Dīgha Nikāya*; *DA*., *Sumaṅgala Vilāsinī*; *M*., *Majjhima Nikāya*; *S*., *Saṁyutta Nikāya*; *Dh*., *Dhammapada*; *DhA*., *Dhammapada Aṭṭhakathā*; *Sn*., *Sutta Nipāta*; *J*., *Jātaka*; *Mhv*., *Mahāvaṁsa*; *Sum. Theol*., *Summa Theologica*; *SBE*, *Sacred Books of the East*; *HOS*, *Harvard Oriental Series*; *JAOS*, *Journal of the American Oriental Society*; *JISOA*, *Journal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art*; *HJAS*, *Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies*.

I.

c2.s1.1

IT MAY BE said that the whole of Indian political theory is implied and subsumed in the words of the marriage formula “I am That, thou art This, I am Sky, thou art Earth,” etc. addressed by the Brāhman Priest, the Purohita, to the King in AB. VIII. 27. This being so, and as it has been pretended that these words were addressed by the King to the Priest,² it becomes desirable, if the theory is to be understood, to establish once for all that, as is explicitly stated by Sāyaṇa, it is the Purohita that utters them. A comparative study of many other contexts will show, indeed, that it is inconceivable that they should have been spoken by the King, who is unquestionably the "feminine" party in the "marriage" of the Sacerdotium (*brahma*) and the Regnum (*kṣatra*).

c2.s1.2

² Evola, J., *Rivolta contra il mondo moderno*, Milan, 1934, p. 105. Evola's thesis, in his discussion of the Regnum, forces him to misinterpret AB. VIII. 27. Had it not been for this, his admirable chapter "Uomo e Donna" (of which an English version was published in *Viśvabharati*, Feb.-April 1940), applied to the true relationships of the Sacerdotium and the Regnum (approximately "Church and State"), would have acquired a greater significance. As it is, Evola's argument for the superiority of the Regnum, the active principle, to the Sacerdotium, the contemplative principle, is a concession to that very "*mondo moderno*" against which his polemic is directed. His argument is as much a perversion of the Greek as it is of the Indian doctrine. In the Greek tradition the heroic kind or caste (*γένος* = *jāti*), alike in the soul and the community,—"that part of our soul which is endowed with bravery (*ἀνδρεία* = Skr. *vīrya*) and courage (*θυμός*, Skr. √*dhū*), and which is the lover of victory" (*φιλόνικος* = Skr. *jiṣṇu*) (Plato, *Timaeus* 70 A),—is the best part of the mortal or animal soul, superior to the appetitive and inferior to the spiritual and immortal part that lays down the law. As such its seat is in the heart, between the bowels and the head; it is the defender of the whole community; its function is to listen to the Voice (*λόγος*) from the Akropolis, to serve (*ὑπηρετεῖν*) and cooperate in battle (*σύμμαχος εἶναι*) with the sacred principle against the mob of the appetites (within us) or of moneyed men (in the city). The three parts of the soul (or body politic) thus evidently correspond in hierarchy to the *brahma*, *kṣatra*, and *viś*, respectively the Sacerdotium, Regnum, and Commons of the Vedic tradition (in which the *śūdra* is represented by the Asuras); and there can be no possible doubt of the superiority of the sacred to the royal character. That the Spiritual Authority, Plato's *ἱερόν*, etc., is also the Ruler, Plato's *ἄρχων*, etc., just as the *brahma* is "both the *brahma* and the *kṣatra*," means indeed that the Supreme Power is a royal as well as a priestly power, but quite certainly does not mean that the *kṣatra* considered apart from the *brahma* is itself the supreme authority or anything more than its agent and servant. A. M. Hocart, in *Les Castes*, Paris, 1938, p. 65, repeats Evola's error, saying "L'homme et son épouse sont le ciel et la terre, de même que le roi et le prêtre" where he should have said "de même que le prêtre et le roi."

c2.s1.3

We must premise that Mitrāvaruṇau, and likewise Indrāgnī or Indrābṛhaspatī, are syzygies or progenitive pairs (*mithunāni*): Mitra, Agni and Bṛhaspati being on the one hand the divine archetypes of the Sacerdotium or Spiritual authority (*brahma*) and Varuṇa and Indra those of the Regnum (*kṣatra*). We shall, for the most part, make use of the Brāhmaṇas, but it must not be overlooked that the institutions therein more fully described and explained are often referred to in the Ṛgveda. Thus in RV. X. 52. 5 “Into thy hands, O Indra, I (Agni) commit the bolt,” cf. RV. II. 11. 4 “We have laid the bolt in thy hands”³—corresponding to the *Accipe sceptrum* of Western rites—is the making of the King *in divinis*. The relation of authorizing Mind or Reason (*kratu*) to the efficient Power (*dakṣa*), that of the inner to the outer man, is explicit in RV. VIII. 13. 1, “Indra, at the Soma pressings, cleanses (*punī́te*, Sāyaṇa *śodhayati* = καθαρεῖται, cf. MU. VI. 34. 5 f.) the enunciative Counsel (*krátum . . . ukthyàm*); the Mighty wins increase of Power (*vidé vṛdhásya dákṣasaḥ*)”; cf. RV. X. 31. 2 and ŚB. IV. 4. 4. 1 discussed below. In RV. X. 124. 4 Agni, the Sacrificial Priest (*agnír brahmā́ . . . vidhartā́*, RV. VII. 7. 5), is described as “choosing” (*vṛṇānáḥ*) Indra: it is interesting to observe that already the Commons play a part in this election (*vī́śo ná rā́jānaṁ vṛṇānā́ḥ*, *ib.* 8, cf. AV. III. 4. 2). The “marriage” of the Purohita (Saptagu, Bṛhaspati) to the King is referred to in RV. X. 47. 1 “We have taken thee by the right hand,” spoken reproachfully with reference to Indra’s arrogance and breach of the loyalty demanded by the marital relation of the Regnum to the Sacerdotium; as in BD. VII. 54 f. That the Purohita, as the designation itself implies, takes precedence of the King is explicit in RV. IV. 50. 7-9, “To him the people of themselves pay homage, in whose realm the Brahmā goeth first” (*pū́rva éti*), quoted in AB. VIII. 27.⁴ The feudal relationship of the Regnum to the Sacerdotium is explicit in Agni's words addressed to Indra, "I in person go before thee . . . and if thou givest me my share (or due), then shalt thou through

c2.s1.4

³ The Bolt (*vajra*) being the most essential symbol of the Kingship as a delegated power (RV. as cited, and TS. II. 1. 3. 4, ŚB. I. 2. 4. 1, V. 4. 4. 15, XIII. 4. 4. 1). If we also find the royal “virility” (*vīrya*) equated with the bow (ŚB. V. 3. 5. 30), no antinomy is involved, the bow being clearly analogous to the vajra (both are held upright and grasped in the middle), and the arrows discharged from it corresponding to those which are actually the penetrating points of the *vajra*, from which they are derived in TS. VI. 1. 3 and ŚB. I. 2. 4. 1. The bow is as much as the *vajra* a solar weapon; the bolt is a “shaft” of light, the arrows that the Sun discharges are “shafts” of light.

c2.s1.5

⁴ Bṛhaspati, whose identity with Agni, Priest and King, is unquestioned, is “seven-mouthed” and “seven-rayed” in verse 4 of the same hymn. He is regularly the Divine Sacerdotium (*brahma*), and High Priest (*brahmā*) of the Gods, as Indra is the Regnum (*kṣatra*). “Agni-Bṛhaspati” is the answer to the question asked in RV. VIII. 64. 7 *brahmākástáṁ (índraṁ) saparyati*. The verses of our hymn are quoted in AB. VIII. 26, describing Bṛhaspati as the archetype of the human Purohita and Brahmā, who “takes after” him. The Brahmā is, of course, the infallible Brāhman priest who does not take any active part in the Sacrifice, at which his presence is nevertheless indispensable. Himself remaining silent, his relation to the three other Brāhman officiants whose operation is active and vocal is precisely that of Director to Executive; he is thus Brahmaṇaspati and Vācaspati (the *brahma*, as *ṛc*, being precisely the vocalised *brahma*). This is the explanation of “the very close connection of *brahman* with *vāc*”

c2.s1.6

(cf. AA. I. 1. 1 and 1. 3. 8 with Keith's notes); as *akṣara* is Brahma, so *akṣarā* (RV. VII. 15. 9 and 36. 7) is Vāc; this connection is nothing other than that of Manas = Prajāpati with Vāc, or than that of Brahmā with Sarasvatī-Vāc in the "later mythology." It is not altogether easy to understand why Brahmā, the God, has been regarded as the creation of the "later mythology" (Macdonell, *Vedic Mythology*, p. 118). It would rather appear that the Buddhists were essentially right in referring to Brahmā Sanaṁkumāra as the supreme deity of the Brāhmans and to Indra Sujampati as his vassal. For Bṛhaspati, who is at once the *brahma* and the *brahmā* of the Gods, is certainly himself a God, and why not, then, the God Brahmā, the person of Brahma? "Yonder Gods assuredly knew that Brahma of old" (AV. XIII. 2. 13). The most that could be said is that *brahmā* in RV. is more a title than a name, and only later on becomes a name; but this changes nothing in the nature of the Person to whom the name applies.

c2.s1.7

It is only the actual iconography of Brahmā that is late, as is the Buddha's. In being "lotus-born" and therefor *padmāsana*, Bṛhaspati is still the Agni sprung from the "lotus" in RV. VI. 16. 13, and "Vasiṣṭha the child of Mitrāvaruṇau, the Sacerdotium (*brahma*) born of Manas and Urvaśī, whom the Viśve Devāḥ supported in the lotus," RV. VII. 33. 11, where the equation of Mitra with Manas and Varuṇa with Urvaśī (f.) may be remarked. Vasiṣṭha, the Sacerdotium, is assuredly the Bṛhaspati who in RV. VIII. 96. 13-15 "assumes a body in the womb of Aṁśumatī" and enables Indra to overcome his godless foes "with Bṛhaspati as yoke-fellow" (*bṛ́haspátinā yujā́*). We see now why Vasiṣṭha should be Indra's instructor (in the *virāj*, of which "he who gets the most becomes the chieftain," *śreṣṭhaḥ*), and why formerly none but a Vāsiṣṭha (descendant of Vasiṣṭha) becomes a *brahmā*, i. e. "a Bṛhaspati" (ŚB. XII. 6. 1. 38-41). RV. VII. 33. 14 *yuddhyata* addressed to Indra and his "Bulls" (Maruts) corresponds to BG. II. 18 *yuddhyasva* addressed to Arjuna. In RV. V. 48. 5 Varuṇa "enduing the fair garment and operative with his tongue" (*jihvā́yā . . . ṛñjate cā́ru vásānaḥ*), i. e. Varuṇa proceeding as Agni the Priest "with his purifying ladle" (*pāvakáyā juhvā̀*, RV. VI. 11. 2), is already, like the iconographic Brahmā, "four-faced" (*cáturanīkaḥ*), Agni, the *brahmā* of RV. IV. 9. 4 and VII. 7. 5, himself explicitly "four-sighted" (*caturakṣáḥ*) in RV. I. 31. 13, which is rightly understood by Sāyaṇa to mean "facing towards the four directions."

c2.s1.8

Now bearing in mind that "Arjuna" is Indra (VS. X. 21, ŚB. II. 1. 2. 12 and V. 4. 3. 7), or, what amounts to the same thing, Indra's son (Mbh.), that Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna, like Indrāgnī (RV. VI. 59. 5) and like Mātali (= Vāyu-Mātariśvān) and Indra (Mbh.), share a common car and that "where these are, Kṛṣṇa the Lord of Yoga and Arjuna the Archer, there are fortune, victory, security of being and governmental-science" (*nīti*, BG. XVIII. 78) it is clear that Kṛṣṇa is the Sacerdotium (*brahma*), as is Arjuna the Regnum (*kṣatra*), and Kṛṣṇa therefore to be equated with the Agni-Bṛhaspati-Vasiṣṭha, *brahma* etc. of RV. It is just because Arjuna is Indra—that Indra who is *idam-dra* because he alone saw Brahma (AA. II. 4 = Ait. Up. I. 1, similarly JB. III. 203, cf. JUB. IV. 20-21 = Kena Up. 14 f.)—that he alone is able to see Kṛṣṇa's "supreme form" (BG. XI. 47-48). BG. is an Arthaśāstra; its burden of the control of the senses and conme, O Indra, perform heroic deeds” (*ayáṁ ta emi tanvà̄ purástād . . . yadā́ máhyaṁ dī́dharo bhāgám indrā́d ín máyā kṛṇavo vīryā̀ṇi*, RV. VIII. 100. 1).⁵ In RV. I. 18. 6 Sadasaspati (who must be Agni, cf. RV. I. 21. 5

c2.s1.9

⁵ The reference is to the performance of the Sacrifice, which is the primary “work” of the King above (Indra as Viśvakarmā, RV. VIII. 98. 2) as it is of earthly Kings. Inasmuch as the King is the Executive (*kartṛ*), his is essentially the *karmamārga*, the “active life,” as distinguished from the *jñānamārga*, the “contemplative life” of the Brāhman. Further, it will be seen that in giving Agni his “due” or “share” (*bhāga*)—from Agni's point of view *namasyantaś ca māṁ bhaktyā*, as in BG. IX. 14—Indra becomes a *bhaktṛ*, just as in RV. X. 51. 8-9 where Agni demands his “share of the oblation” (*haviṣo datta bhāgám*), the Gods who grant it are *bhaktṛs*. The like is implied for the human Sacrificer who gives his “portion” (*bhāga*) to Agni (RV. II. 10. 6) and “in appointing to each their share, endears the Gods” (*yathā bhāgaṁ tad devatāḥ prīṇāti*, AB. III. 4 and 38); cf. RV. IV. 2. 8-10, where the generous Sacrificer “in offering the oblation, endeareth Thee” (*priyáṁ vā tvā kṛṇávate havíṣmān*) and *ib.* 14 where “dear to Thee be his invocation.” So also in TS. V. 4. 5. 4 where Agni “endeared by the gift of his own portion (*svéna bhāgadhéyena prītáḥ*), burns away the Sacrificer's evil” (*pāpmānaṁ ápi dahati*); cf. TS. II. 1. 4. 6 where Indra approaches Agni “with his own share” and Agni then burns away the sixteen coils of Vṛtra in which Indra is wrapped, and in like manner in the case of “whoever approaches him with his own share (*svéna bhāgadhéyenópasṛtaḥ*), Agni burns up his evil,” and “approaches” might have been rendered by “takes refuge with”; the preceding texts from TS. are echoed in BU. VI. 3. 1 *bhāgadhéyaṁ juhomi*, etc., and the Gods having been thus “delighted” (*tṛptāḥ*), “may they delight me” (*mā . . . tarpayantu*), and a reciprocity is implied as much as it is in the older *bhakti* texts; it is never for nothing that a man devotes himself. The “sacrificial offering” (*yajñíyam bhāgám*) to which Agni moves in RV. X. 124. 3, in the same way implies a *bhaktṛ*, here again doubtless Indra. That “Thou art ours and we are thine” (RV. VIII. 92. 32) implies no less a mutual loyalty, like that of thane and earl or wife and husband (cf. the oaths in AB. VIII. 15), that belongs to the very essence of “Bhakti.” The *bhakti* “tone” of RV. V. 46. 1 (*háyo ná vidvā́n ayuji svayáṁ . . . ná . . . vaśmi*, etc., corresponding to I. 190. 4 *átyo ná yaṁsad yakṣabhṛ́d vícetāḥ*) and that of VII. 86. 7 (*áraṁ dāso ná mīḷhúṣe karāṇy ahám*) is unmistakable. The Sacrificer is identified with the oblation (*havír vaí dīkṣitáḥ*, TS. VI. 1. 4. 5); it is himself that he devotes (ŚB. *passim*); the Sacrifice is a symbolic suicide (*ātmānam ālabhate*, AB. II. 3; cf. Eggeling’s note on ŚB. I. 2. 3. 5, and the designation of the Sacrificer as *ātmayājī* in Maitri Up. VI. 10). AB. III. 8 combines the notions of the contemplation (*dhyāna*) of a deity, the offering of an oblation and that of sacrifice with an “endearment” (*yasyai devatāyai havir gṛhītaṁ syāt tāṁ dhyāyed . . . sākṣād eva tad devatāṁ prīṇāti, pratyakṣād devatāṁ yajati*). There is no real difference between the implications of these Vedic and Brāhmaṇa texts and that of, for example, BG. XII. 19 “He that hath ‘devotion is dear to me” (*bhaktimān me priyo naraḥ*). It would be naïve to maintain that the Vedic Sacrificer, who certainly performed “devotions” was not also “devoted,” or that he never loved the “Friend” (Mitra).

c2.s1.10

quest of self is identical with that which Kauṭilya describes as “the whole of this science” of government (see p. 88, *infra*).

c2.s1.11

Why then is Kṛṣṇa “black,” as the name implies, or “blue-black,” and Arjuna, as again the name implies, “white”? In the first place, the “Drop” that in RV. VIII. 96. 13-15 takes birth (*avatiṣṭhati*, the regular expression used of the *ātman* when it mounts the bodily vehicle) as Indra's fellow, and for which he has been longing, is “Black” (*kṛṣṇa*): according to Sāyaṇa, this “Kṛṣṇa” is the name of an Asura, presumably “Viśvarūpa, the son of Tvaṣṭṛ, a sister's son of the Asuras, who was the Purohita of the Gods” (TS. II. 5. 1. 1), i. e. Bṛhaspati, *asurya* son of Tvaṣṭṛ, RV. II. 23. 2 and 17, and/or that “Uśanas Kāvya of the Asuras” (TS. II. 5. 8. 5) with whom Kṛṣṇa identifies himself in BG. X. 37. Again because Agni and Indra are respectively the Golden Person in the Sun (Death in ŚB. X. 5. 2. 13) and the bright Sun itself (ŚB. X. 4. 1. 5), as in the eye, where the black (*kṛṣṇa*) represents Agni and the white (*śukla*) Indra (BU. II. 2. 2); “the blue, the deep black” (*nīlaṁ paraḥ kṛṣṇam*), i. e. the pupil, of the solar and the microcosmic eyes corresponding to the masculine, spiritual power (*ama*, Agni, Vāyu, Āditya, *ātman*, *sāman*, etc.) and “the shining white” (*śuklaṁ bhās*) to the feminine, temporal Dominion (*sā*, Earth, Air, Sky, vision, *ṛc*, etc.), CU. I. 6 and 7. Cf. TS. III. 1. 1 where *nīla* is the proper color of the initiate, who would by no means turn pale. It is clear that Kṛṣṇa's *asurya varṇa* is that of the Divine Darkness, and does not imply a local origin from any swarthy aboriginal people, except in the ontological sense that the Asuras are “aborigines.”

c2.s1.12

*sádaspátī índrāgnī*) is called “Indra’s dear and lovable friend” (*priyám índrasya kámyam*): in RV. I. 80. 1 it is the Brahmā that “prospers” him (*brahmā́ cakāra várdhanam*).

c2.s1.13

Our starting point will be ŚB. IV. 1. 4, where the Mixta Persona of Mitrāvaruṇau is the “Counsel and the Power” (*krátūdákṣau*) and “these are his⁶ two (selves), (*asyaitāv‿ātmanaḥ*).⁷ . . . Mitra is the Counsel and Varuṇa the Power, Mitra the Sacerdotium (*brahma*) and Varuṇa the Regnum (*kṣatra*), Mitra the Knower (*abhigantṛ*) and Varuṇa the Executive (*kartṛ*).⁸ Now at the beginning these two were distinct (*ágre nánā*),⁹ the Sacerdotium and the Regnum: then Mitra the Sacerdotium could subsist apart from Varuṇa the Regnum, but Varuṇa the Regnum could not subsist apart from Mitra the Sacerdotium.¹⁰ Whatever deed (*kárma*) Varuṇa did that was not quickened (*áprasūtam*) by Mitra the Sacerdotium, was unsuccessful (*ná . . . sámāndrdhe*). So Varuṇa the Regnum called upon Mitra the Sacerdotium, saying: ‘Turn thou unto me (*úpa mā́vartasva*) that we may unite (*sámsṛjāvahai*); I assign to you the precedence (*púras tvā karavai*); quickened by thee (*tvat prasūtáḥ*) I shall do deeds.’ That is, therefore, the origin of the Purohita’s office. . . . Whatever deed, quickened by Mitra the Sacerdotium, Varuṇa did thenceforth, succeeded (*sám . . . ānṛdhe*).” The choice is mutual; if either the Purohita or the King be ill-chosen by the other it is called a commingling of right and wrong (*sukṛtáṁ ca duṣkṛtáṁ ca*).

c2.s1.14.1

⁶ Note the singular. The Mixta Persona of Mitrāvaruṇau, Supreme Identity of Conjoint Principles, is the same as that of the “One Akṣara that is both Agni the Sacerdotum and Indra the Regnum” (ŚB. X. 4. 1. 9); cf. RV. I. 108. 7 “Whether ye, Indrāgnī, take your pleasure at home (*své duroṇé*, i. e. *guhyam, ab intra*) or in the Sacerdotum and the Regnum” *brahmáṇi rā́jani vā*, i. e. *prādur, ab extra*, in active administration). With *své duroṇé* here cf. JB. I. 146 *yathāgṛham . . . yathājñāti vā*, and KU. II. 25. The Vedic “dual” divinities imply, for the most part at least, a biunity (*syzygy*) of conjoint principles, active and passive in mutual relationship or both active in relation to things externally administered. The names of such dual divinities cannot always be adequately rendered by the simple use of an adjunctive particle. The resources of language and iconography are inadequate to the representation of an identity of contraries, such as *chāyā-tapau* or *yin* and *yang*: we cannot think of contraries as coincident, but only as associated, and it may be, reconciled; in other words, the truth of this truth (*satyasya satyam*) is paradoxical, *satyena channam*. Thus Mitrāvaruṇau is not an aggregate or mere composition of an essence and a nature, but the one Mixta Persona of both: while at the same time they are Mitra and Varuṇa, and whatever is born of such a pair proceeds *ex principio conjunctivo*. The *dvaitībhāva* of MU. VII.

c2.s1.14.2

11 is by no means a contradiction of *advaita*, for just as in Christian doctrine, essence and nature, being and existence, mercy and majesty are one in God. Monophysitism would have been as much a heresy from the Indian as from the Christian point of view. The priority of the Counsel (*kratu*) to the Power (*dakṣa*), i. e. of the contemplative to the active life, is already explicit in RV. VIII. 13. 1 where Indra purifies the former and so gains the latter. It should be here noted that the order in which the component parts of a dual appear is purely grammatical (cf. Caland on PB. VII. 7): the form Indrāgnī, for example, if taken literally to be "Indra and Agni" would be ineffective, it is "Agni and Indra" (RV. III. 25. 4) that is to be understood, for as AB. II. 37 remarks, "These two as Indrāgnī were not victorious, but as Agnendrau they won." "Regarded as paramount Lord, Agni is Indra" (*indraḥ paramaiśvaryo 'gniḥ*, Sāyaṇa on RV. V. 2. 3); "Agni is Indra to the mortal worshipper" (RV. V. 3. 1). Literally, "these two are of himself," i. e. "these are his two natures." "For we must distinguish two things, the will and the power" (St. Augustine, *De spir. et lit.*, 53). "Two powers are first distinguished (σχίζονται) from the Logos, a poetic (= *kāvya*), according to which the artist ordains all things and which is called God (= *brahma*);

c2.s1.14.3

and the royal power (= *kṣatra*) of him called the Lord (= *īśvara*) by which he controls all things" (Philo as cited by Brehier, *Les idées . . . de Philon d'Alexandre*, 1925, pp. 113-114). "*God was not Lord* until he had a creature subject to himself" (St. Thomas Aquinas, *Sum. Theol.*, I. 13. 7. *ad* 6). The "two selves" are the "two forms" of Brahma (BU. II. 3, etc.), the "dual nature" (*dvaitībhāva*) of the "Great Self" (*mahātman*) in accordance with which he participates in both the "true" and the "false" (*satyānṛtopabhogārthaḥ*, MU. VII. 11. 8), or, as this might have been otherwise expressed, in virtue of which he is the common source of Devas and Asuras, that is, participates both in divine and human experience, the Gods being the Truth and men Untruth (ŚB. III. 9. 4. 1). The trace of the divine biunity appears in the two selves of the man who is *dvyātman* (JB. I. 17, etc., see note 54). Thus the Purohita is "the half of the self of the Kṣatriya" (*ardhātmo ha vā eṣa kṣatriyasya*, AB. VII. 26), as are Sky and Earth (AA. III. 1. 2) and as is the man of the woman (ŚB. X. 5. 2. 8, BU. 1. 4. 4), and neither is complete without the other (ŚB. VIII. 6. 1. 12, cf. also V. 2. 1. 10), as also holds for Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna (Mbh. II. 20. 3 and 14). Hence the use of *sārdham*, literally "plus a half," in connection with any complementary union, as in JUB. I. 48. 7 where Prajāpati *sārdhaṁ samait*, i. e. "coupled with" Vāc.

c2.s1.14.4

It is thus literally true that "the Purohita was in religion and civil affairs the *alter ego* of the king" Keith, *Rel. and Phil. of the Vedas*, p. 292), or as we should rather say, the king the *alter ego* of the Purohita. For this does not mean that the two "halves" are reciprocally equal; on the contrary, the relation of one to the other is that of part to whole. The "only Vrātya" (*Brahma*, *brahma*) is the source of the *brahma* and the *kṣatra* (AV. XV. 10. 3 as rightly understood by Aufrecht, *pace* Whitney), the *brahma* (Brahma) is both the *brahma* and the *kṣatra* (ŚB. X. 4. 1. 9), Agni is both (ŚB. VI. 6. 3. 5, IX. 4. 1. 16), Mitra and Varuṇa (RV. VII. 12. 3). In the case of Manas and Vāc, Vāc is the lesser, "for Manas is by far the more unlimited (*áparimitataram*) and Vāc by far the more limited” (*párimitatară̄*, ŚB. I. 4. 4. 7, cf. I. 4. 5. 11), and these are the two aspects of Prajāpati, who is “both the limited and the unlimited” (*parimitāparimita*, ŚB. VII. 2. 2. 14, etc.). The Infinite, in other words, always includes the Finite as “its own,” of which it cannot be deprived, whether logically or really (cf. AV. X. 8. 29 and BU. V. 1): it is the Finite nature that can be logically, if not really, isolated from the Infinite, and therefore stands in need of a “completion.” Cf. RV. III. 31. 2 where, of Agni’s parents, “one empowers (*ṛndhán*), the other is the agent” (*kartā́*).

c2.s1.15

⁸ The relation, in other words, is that of patron to artist, or in the artist that of art to operation, *actus primus* to *actus secundus*. And just as the King is only legitimately such to the extent that he does the will of a higher power—“Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”—so the *artifex* as an efficient cause is only free to the extent that he agrees with the patron and is governed by his art, or, if not, is merely a “worker,” a “hand,” compelled by economic pressure or driven by his own sweet will or fancy.

c2.s1.16

⁹ *Agre*: not *ante principium* (where there is only the Supreme Identity, *tád ékam*, *yáthā strīpúmāṁsau sampáriṣvaktau*, BU. I. 4. 3), but with reference to the separation of the male and female principles, Sky and Earth, etc., *in principio*, because of which they are alien to one another until reunited by marriage: *ágre* here and *sṛṣṭaú* in ŚB. X. 4. 1. 5 imply “before the reign begins” or “at the beginning of the reign” (*pūrvakāle yasya rāṣṭrasya*, Sāyaṇa on AB. VIII. 1 and as in PB. VII. 6. 10); *sṛṣṭaú nánā* in ŚB. X. 4. 1. 5 corresponding to “twofold in the beginning” (*dvayáṁ . . . ágre*). *Agre* corresponds to *in principio* (Gen. I. 1), now rendered “in the beginning,” but which almost all mediaeval commentators, from St. Augustine (*Conf.* XII. 20, 27, 29) onwards, have understood to mean “in the first principle,” *in verbo*, *in sapientia*, etc., without reference to time.

c2.s1.17

¹⁰ Ṛté implies not only a spatial separation, but an opposition.

c2.s1.18

The expressions *púras tvā karavai* and *tvát prasūtáḥ* imply the technical terms Purohita, Purodhātṛ, Rājasū and Rājasūya. The Purohita, literally "one put in front," "one who takes precedence," like Agni or Bṛhaspati *in divinis*, is the King's Brāhman adviser and minister. The Purodhātṛ is the King himself, who appoints the Purohita or, more literally, "puts him in front." The Devasvaḥ are the deities—Savitṛ, Agni, Soma, Bṛhaspati, Indra, Rudra, Mitra and Varuṇa—by whom the King is "quickened" through the Priest who invokes them as "King-quickeners" (*rājasvaḥ*), so that "It is these Gods that now quicken (*suvate*) him, and having been quickened (*sūtáḥ*) by them, he is hence-forth quickened" (*śváḥ sūyate*, ŚB. V. 3. 3. 11, 13).¹¹ He rules, then by "Divine Right." The Rājasūya, or alternatively Varuṇasava is, then, the sacrificial and initiatory ritual of the "King's Quickening"; the most essential part of this rite is an "aspersion" (*abhiṣeka*, *abhiṣecanīya*), cf. AV. IV. 8. 1, and this corresponds to what would now be called a "Coronation."¹² The "Quickening" refers to the fact that the rite is both initiatory and sacrificial; the King is brought forth, new-born from the initiatory death, by the officiating Priests who are, in this respect, his "fathers."¹³

c2.s1.19

¹¹ The root in *sūya*, *sava*, *sūta*, etc., is *sū*. Many scholars distinguish two roots *sū*, (1) to "impel" or "instigate" and (2) to "quicken" or "generate." The latter meaning is obvious in RV. VII. 101. 3 where *súte* (begets) is opposed to *starīḥ* (sterile), in I. 146. 5 where Agni, the "Sun of Men" is *súḥ*, i. e. *prasavitā*, *utpādayitā* (Sāyaṇa) in relation to all things, in RV. I. 113. where *savitúḥ saváya* is "for the birth of Savitṛ" himself, and in BU. VI. 4. 19 where Savitṛ, "He of true quickening" (*satyáprasava*), is invoked in the marriage rite, certainly as progenitive deity, Gandharva and Divine Eros. In our contexts it is this Savitṛ that is the primary instigator or quickener (MU. VI. 7 *savanāt savitā*). If in some contexts *sū* is rather to "instigate" than to "quicken" (cf. *sūyate* = *anujñāyate*, AV. IV. 8. 1. Comm.), and may be replaced by forms of *iṣ* or causative forms of *ṛ* (as in AB. II. 5), this is because it is only when Manas and Vāc are "personified" (as is usual in our texts, Manas being identified with Prajāpati, and Vāc as his daughter) that we realise that the consequence of an "instigation" of Vāc by Manas (or the *brahma*) is an embodiment of what has been "conceived" and is a "concept" (BU. II. 2. 3): the intellectual principle inseminating the mother of which it is to be born, just as in any other aspect of a Logos doctrine. To "instigate" or "set in motion" or "move" is thus only a weaker value of "quicken": the Purohita is really "fathering" his "Counsel" on the King who as the *kartṛ* is to give it effect by means of his *fiat*. And this is only an extension of the acts of aspersion, etc., by which the King has already been "begotten" (*sūtáḥ*) and "brought to birth" (*prásūtaḥ*)—for this distinction cf. KB. V. 3 *prajā . . . sṛṣṭā aprasūtāḥ* = Avyakta Up. VI. 1 *prajāḥ sṛṣṭvā na jāyante*, and BU. I. 4. 11 where the *kṣatra* is *sṛṣṭam*, but evidently *aprasūtam* until the Rāja-sūya has taken place. Eggeling discusses his translation of *sū* in *SBE*. XLI, p. 2, note 1. We adopt his usual rendering, "quicken." His occasional use of "spiriter," although true to the essential values, since here as in John VI. 63 *spiritus est qui vivificat*, is too awkward to be adopted. We have no doubt that the "two" roots *sū* are, or were originally, one. The octad of King-making deities (Savitṛ, Agni, Soma, Bṛhaspati, Indra, Rudra, Mitra and Varuṇa) who endow the King with a variety of powers or virtues correspond to the "good fairies" of folklore who bring their gifts to the newly born solar hero.

c2.s1.20

¹² The word *abhiṣeka* is too often, and especially by translators from the Pali, rendered by "Coronation." It is true that Indra wears a crown and is *kirīṭin* accordingly, that Rudra is turbaned (*uṣṇīṣin*) and that the Mahāpurisa is *uṇhīsosīso*, but the putting on of crown or turban plays no important part in the early Indian rites, where it is an "Aspersion" rather than a "Coronation" that makes the King.

c2.s1.21

¹³ For the Priest as the Sacrificer's "father in God" see *JAOS* 60, 1940, pp. 50-51. It must be understood that the Rājasūya is "a congruous rite" (*tát sóloma kriyate*, ŚB. V. 3. 5. 26), so that all that is said elsewhere of the ritual death and rebirth of the Sacrificer can be applied to the King, *a fortiori*. Accordingly, "He who performs the Rājasūya becomes the 'Child of the Waters' . . . He (the Priest) brings him to birth" (*janáyati*, "delivers," in the medical sense and anagogically), ŚB. V. 3. 5. 19-24—a generation that corresponds to that of Indra as King in RV. VIII. 97. 10 *tatakṣur índraṁ jajanúṣ ca rā́jāse*, comparable to X. 61. 7 *ajanayan bráhma devā́ vāstoṣpátim vratapā́m nír atakṣan*. And this is why the Rājasūya is also the Varuṇasava, for the ritual employs the text of VS. X. 7 where Varuṇa, enthroned in the dwellings of men, is called the "Child of the Waters." If this is more often an epithet of Agni, it is in place here because the nascent Agni "is Varuṇa" and "becomes Mitra" only when "kindled" (RV. V. 3. 1), and the Sacrificer's regeneration is likewise a "kindling" (ŚB. IV. 4. 5. 23). The intention is to enthrone as King, not a "Varuṇa," but a "Mitra." parable in this respect to a baptism; the immersion is for the sake of a liberation from all that pertains to Varuṇa, i. e. from evil, and by it "just as a serpent casts its skin, so is the Sacrificer freed from all evil (*sárvasmāt pāpmáno nírmucyate*), there does not remain in him even so much sin (énas) as there is in a child" (*yā́vat kumāré*, ŚB. IV. 4. 5. 23), words which, applied to a king, would mean "even so much evil as there was in him when a prince." Thus in various ways the King "dies" and is reborn; the old, Varuṇya, man is put off, and the new, Maitreya, man put on, a change that is reflected in the investiture with new garments which follows the immersion, cf. AV. XIV. 2. 44 "Clothing myself anew . . . as a bird from an egg, I am freed from all sin." Such an absolution is essential. The King is, indeed, "another man" in the sense of I Sam. X. 6. Hocart cites the fourteenth century Jean Golein who held "that the king is as much cleansed of his sins" as one who takes orders (*Kingship*, p. 93). Charles I wore white robes at his Coronation "to declare that Virgin purity with which he came to be espoused unto his Kingdom" (Heylin, *Cyprianus Anglicus*, 1668, p. 145). "Espoused to his Kingdom," i. e. as *bhūpati*, "Husband of the Earth"; for just as the King is the "wife" of the Priest, so is the Earth in turn *his* "wife": just as Soma is united to "these quarters of space as his bride (*ābhír digbhír mithunéna*), with his dear domain" (*priyéṇa dhā́mnā*, ŚB. III. 9. 4. 20), so is the human king to his own land (*deśa*), the shooting of arrows to the four quarters in the *digvijaya* rite being evidently a symbolic demonstration of this relationship. The quarters are, of course, always feminine in relation to their centre and meeting point; e. g. RV. IX. 113. 2 where Soma is *diśāṁ pati*, cf. AV. II. 10. 4, AA. II. 2. 3, ŚB. III. 9. 4. 21.

c2.s1.22

As Hocart has remarked with respect to rites of royal installation, "The theory is that the King (1) dies, (2) is reborn, (3) as a god" (*Kingship*, 1927, p. 70). In this sequence, however, he was unable to recognize the "death" in the Indian sources, chiefly ŚB., although he recognized that all regeneration necessarily implies an antecedent death. As to this, it must be remembered that any initiatory rebirth, or indeed a birth of any kind, implies a previous death; for initiatory death may be cited JUB. III. 9. 4 *enam etad dīkṣayanti . . . mṛtasya vāvaiṣa tadā rūpam bhavati*. Any Sacrifice is a symbolic *suicide*; it is himself that the Sacrificer sacrifices to the Gods, to Agni (AB. II. 3 *ātmānam ālabhate*; and ŚB. passim); cf. my "Ātmayajña" in *HJAS.* VI. 358-398, 1942. Moreover, the installation of a King parallels not only that of Varuṇa, but that of King Soma, and although it is for a "supreme sovereignty" and "not for slaying thee" that Soma is bought, nevertheless "when they press him they slay him" (ŚB. III. 3. 2. 8), saying: "Fear not . . . it is the evil that is slain, not Soma" and "*Thereby he slays all his evil*" (*sárvaṁ pāpmānaṁ hanti*, VS. VI. 35 and ŚB. III. 9. 4. 17-18). The beating of the King which puts him above the law, so that he can do no wrong (ŚB. V. 4. 4. 7) is analogous to the pressing of Soma by which "his evil" is removed. In the same way the expiatory bath with which a Sacrifice concludes, taken not in flowing ("living") but in Varuṇya (stagnant) waters, is a kind of death (cf. CU. III. 17. 5 *maraṇam evāvabhṛthaḥ*), and com-

c2.s1.23

Not all the water in the rough rude sea
Can wash the balm from an anointed King.

c2.s1.24

"The Counsel and the Power" are the equivalents of Plato's essentials of good government, φιλοσοφία and δύναμις,13a of the Islamic "Mercy and Majesty" (*jalāl* and *ḥalāl*), in Christian theology of the spirit that giveth life and the letter that killeth (II Cor. III. 6), and of our "Right and Might." "Counsel" (*kratu*, κράτος) might have been rendered as "Will," in accordance with the definition in our text, ŚB. IV. 1. 4. 1, "Whenever with one's mind (*mánasā*) one wills (*kāmáyate*) anything, such as 'This I want' or '*This I would do*,' that is the 'Counsel'," cf. RV. X. 129. 4 *kā́mas* . . . *mánaso rétaḥ prathamám*, AV. XIX. 52, AA. I. 3. 2 *manasā hi sarvān kāmān dhyāyati* . . . *vācā hi sarvān kāmān vadati*, and JB. I. 68 *mano ha vai prajāpatir devatā*, so '*kāmayata*: or by "Authority," what we have a mind to do being the authority for what we actually do. The act expresses what was willed. This being so, we see that "the Counsel and the Power" correspond to Philo's poetic and ordaining "God" and controlling "Lord" (see note 7), or in other words to "his will" and "him" in Eph. I. 11 "the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will." In TS. V. 2. 3. 5 where the "Counsel" is "the beginning of the Sacrifice" (*yajña-mukham*)

c2.s1.25

13a "Apart from a coincidence of these two, political power and philosophy, there can be no cessation of evils, whether for the state or for the individual" (*Republic* 473 D).

c2.s1.26

and is deposited in the East (the place of origin of the *brahma*), Keith renders *kratu* by "inspiration," which is certainly a legitimate value when the application is to the individual realm, as in RV. X. 31. 2 *utá svéna krátunā sáṁ vadeta*, *kratu* here representing the Synteresis. It is preeminently Savitṛ, Bṛhaspati, the *brahma* or Brahma (TS. V. 3. 4. 4) that "inspires" our contemplations (*dhíyo yó naḥ pracodáyāt*, RV. III. 62. 10, the Gāyatrī or Sāvitrī): the Priest at once inspirits and inspires the King. When the Sacerdotium and the Regnum act together, then both possess the counseling power; in RV. I. 93. 5, for example, Agni and Soma are "of joint counsel" (*sákratū*), as must also be understood in the many contexts in which the Regnum (Varuṇa or Indra) are possessed of "counsel" or "counsels" = powers.

c2.s1.27

Thus Manas, "Mind," or rather "Intellect"¹⁴—regularly equated with Prajāpati (TS..and ŚB. *passim*), and often with the Breath—corresponds to *kratu*, the "Counsel" and to *abhigantṛ*, the "Knower": and Vāc, the "Voice"—the daughter, messenger, only property and bride of Manas-Prajāpati (ŚB. VIII. 1. 2. 8, TS. II. 5. 11. 5, PB. XX. 14. 2, AB. V. 23, etc.)—corresponds to *dakṣa*, the "Power" and *kartṛ*, the "Executive" or "Agent,"—"Bṛhaspati is the Spiritual power, Vāc the Royal" (*brahma vai bṛhaspatir . . . vāg vai rāṣṭrī*, AB. I. 19, cf. Vāc as *rāṣṭrī* in RV. VIII. 100. 10 and X.125. 3). The Sacerdotium as Director corresponds to the *aśabda* Brahma, and the Regnum as Factor to the *śabda* Brahma. It is with reference to the *śabda* Brahma (the "spoken Word") that it is said in JUB. II. 9. 6 that "Vāc is the *brahma* (*mantra*), and that this air" (i. e. a vibration), and with reference to the *aśabda* Brahma that it is said in JUB. I. 43. 3 that "Vāc is whatever is on this side of Brahma (i. e. 'under the Sun'), and it is taught that what is otherwhere is Brahma." Bṛhaspati, Brahmaṇaspati, the silent Brahmā, is to Vāc as is the silent to the audible Brahma. She exists in him more eminently (silence is golden, speech is silver); but without her "support" no enunciation of his Will is possible.

c2.s1.28

¹⁴ *Manas* in all our texts and as identified with Prajāpati, *passim*, is the Scholastic *intellectus vel spiritus*, the divine mind and will, and it is only later that *manas* in the sense of external mind or reason and modern "intellect" is subordinated to *buddhi* as "pure intellect"; our *manas* in other words is *νοῦς*, as in Hermes I. 6, 11b where "The Father is *νοῦς*, the Mother *φύσις*, *λόγος* the Son." *Manas*, for ŚB. X. 5. 3. 1, is that Supreme Identity (*tád ekám*) that was in the beginning when "this" universe neither was nor was not (RV. X. 129. 1-2). As remarked by Keith, *manas* in the narrower sense of mental "organ" appears first in Kauṣ. U. III (AA., p. 46); this lower and merely rational "mind" is the seat of "opinion" rather than of knowledge (MU. VI. 30). The "two minds," pure and impure, are distinguished in MU. VI. 34. 6 and elsewhere, as in Plato and Philo. The word μετανοεῖν, "to change one's mind" implies the replacement of the impure by the pure *νοῦς*.

c2.s1.29

In a traditional society, whatever is said by whoever “has the say-so” is “no sooner said than done.” It is not with his hands but by his fiat or edicts that a King “works.” He is the “Voice” that gives effect to the purposes of the Spiritual authority, and thus does the will of God on earth.14a “What is done vocally is done indeed” (*vācā kṛtaṁ karma kṛtam*, *Mahānārayaṇa U.* IV. 7). Just as *in divinis* “Indra, the Regnum, is the Voice” and it is by this voice that Agni performs the Sacrifice (*karoty eva vācā* . . . *gamayati manasā*, JUB. I. 33. 4), so it is at the Royal Sacrificer’s word of command that the “work” (*karma*, the sacrificial work essential to the welfare of the kingdom) is done (ŚB. I. 9. 1. 2), “it is with the Voice that he says ‘Do this,’ and therewith the altar is built” (ŚB. X. 5. 1. 1.). The dual government “knows all purposes intellectually (*manasā hi sarvān kāmān dhyāyati*) and announces them verbally” (*vācā hi sarvān kāmān vadati*, AA. I. 3. 2). Just as the Purohita is “preferred,” so “Intellect takes precedence of Voice (*purástād vācáś* . . . *carati*) . . . and were it not for Intellect, the Voice would only babble” (ŚB. III. 2. 4. 11, where for *manas* and *vāc* could be substituted *brahma* and *kṣatra*; cf. I. 4. 5. 11): even in the ritual, whatever is uttered by a Hotṛ that has not been prompted by the Maitrāvaruṇa (Brahmā) is *asurya* (AB. II. 5). We have seen that what the Purohita “knows” (*abhigantṛ*) the King performs (*kartṛ*): in other words “the Voice speaks not but what is ‘known’ (*abhigatam*) by Intellect” (ŚB. IV. 6. 7. 10), and of this filial and wifely obedience we can say truly that “the discipline of Logos, caught up with the vision of Mythos, is a royal marriage” (L. F. Kinney, in *Journal of Philosophy*, XXXIV, 1937, p. 358).

c2.s1.30

14a That it is the King's function by his Fiat to give expression to the spiritual Counsel, implies the traditional doctrine that human law echoes or reflects Divine Law. Thus, for example, the King, “who was to be a ‘divine man’ and so link the people with the spiritual order” is regarded as “the incarnate representation of supreme and universal Law. In him that Law, itself unformulated, could become vocal (λογικός); that is, the ideal man had the power of taking a Law which was spirit and divine purpose, and of applying it to human problems. Through him the Law, or nature of God, could become statutory laws, and true laws for society could never, it was universally believed, be had in any other way” (Goodenough, *An Introduction to Philo Judaeus*, 1940, pp. 38-39).

c2.s1.31

When the royal “Voice” is thus informed, “what is done vocally is done indeed” (*yad vāva vācā karoti tad etad evāsya kṛtaṁ bhavati*, JUB. II. 2. 8): Priest and King speak “with one voice,” and just as it is only when instigated (*prásūtaḥ*) by the Sacerdotium that the King is effective (ŚB. IV. 1. 4. 5), so in the same way “whatever the subject does uninstigated (*aprasūtaḥ*) by these two, the Sacerdotium and the Regnum, is misdone (*akṛtam*) and men belittle it, saying: ‘Even what he does is un-done’ (*akṛtam*)” (AB. II. 38).¹⁵ It follows from the foregoing that

c2.s1.32

¹⁵ Just as in ŚB. IV. 1. 4. 3 “whatever the Regnum does (*yád dha kím ca . . . kárma cakré*) unquickened (*áprasūtam*) by the Sacerdotium, therein it fails” (*na . . . sámānṛdhe*) or conversely “succeeds” (*ānṛdhe*). We see from this collation that *kṛta* and *saṃṛddha*, *akṛta* and *asaṃṛddha* are equivalents: that what is “misdone” is really “not done” at all. Thus the privative *a* in *akṛta* does not deny an event, but asserts that the “event” was not an act but a failure to “act.” The verb “to act” has strictly speaking only a good and positive sense, as when we speak of God as “all in act”; a sin is not an “act” but an “omission.” St. Thomas Aquinas in the same way speaks of the sinner as “non-existent” (*Sum. Theol.*, I. 20. 2 *ad* 4), not meaning to say that no one sins. In the same way, too, *asat*, literally “not being,” is also in many contexts “naught-y,” i. e. evil; not a mere nothingness, but a mere potentiality. All these propositions depend on the principle *ens et bonum convertuntur*, common to all traditional metaphysics. In BG. XVII. 27-28 *sat* and *asat* are in all cases categories of what the Nominalist would call “real” things. In JUB. I. 53. 1 the two worlds—Sky and Earth, with all their equivalents, m. and f.—are respectively *sat* and *asat*. remarkable that in discussing this very question of the reality of the world Sextus Empiricus makes use of the familiar Indian parable of the snake and the rope, saying that the Sceptics by no means “abolish phenomena” but only “question whether the underlying object is such as it appears . . . our doubt does not concern the appearance itself but the account given of the appearance” (*Pyrrhonism*, I. 227-228). So also Heracleitus (*Aph*. IV and XIII taken together). This is precisely the Vedantic position: the rope is not a snake, nor even “really” a rope, but “really” a manifestation of Brahma, “the Real who becomes whatever there is here” (TU. II. 6). In the same way, as we have repeatedly pointed out, *māyā* does not mean an “illusion” as distinct from a real phenomenon, but rather the means of creating any appearance whatever: that these worlds are *māyāmaya* does not mean that they do not “exist,” but that they are quantitative, or “material” in the sense of the etymologically equivalent *mātrā*, “measure,” to be understood in the sense of Heracleitus XX, “ever-living Fire, in measures (μέτρα) being kindled and in measures going out” (ἀποσβεννύμενον = *nirvāta*, as applicable to fire, wind and passion); to these “measures” of Heracleitus (cf. Plato, *Timaeus* 45B, C, where vision is a part of the internal fire) correspond the *tejomātrāḥ* of BU. IV. 4. 1 = *prāṇāgnayaḥ* of Praśna U. IV. 3, i. e. the human elementals or “powers of the soul.” For *māyā*, from √*mā* and as denoting the principle of measurement and thus the means of creation see “Nirmāṇakāya” in *JRAS* 1938, pp. 81-84, and AV. XIII. 2. 3 and 5, *nánārūpe áhanī kárṣi māyáyā . . . dīvaṁ ca sūrya pṛthivīṁ ca devīm ahorātré vimīmāno yád éṣi*.

c2.s1.33

The question is of importance in connection with the so-called Vedantic doctrine of “illusion.” It is evident that whatever is an “appearance” (*rūpa*) must be an appearance of something and that whatever “significance” (*nāman*) is attached to this appearance must involve a correct or an incorrect interpretation of its basis. It is by means of the intelligible and the sensible, “name and appearance” (*nāmarūpa*), that which is referred to by Vāc and recognized by Manas, that Brahma, Deus absconditus (*bráhmaivá parārdhám agacchat*), “returned (*pratyávait*, “came down again,” i. e. descended as *avatāra*) to these worlds which are coextensive with what can be sensed and named” (ŚB. XI. 2. 3. 3-6, cf. BU. I. 4. 7, S. II. 101, D. II. 63, 64), becoming thus, and thus “enjoying,” both what is “real” (*satya*) and what is “false” (*anṛta*, TU. II. 6, cf. MU. VII. 28. 8); it is, indeed, by a marriage of these two, *satya* and *anṛta*, affirmation (*oṃ*) and negation (*na*), that man is propagated and multiplied (*tayor mithunāt prajāyate bhūyān bhavati*, AA. II. 3. 6). Our functional existence, unlike our being, is logical and analytical, determined equally by what we are not and what we are; we distinguish subject from object and content from form.

c2.s1.34

There are, of course, “true” and “false” names of things; the former correspond to their essences or formative ideas and the latter to our own thinking. ŚB. XI. 3. 2. 5, having in mind the latter and conventional nomenclature, remarks that of these two, “name and appearance,” the latter is the “greater.” From this point of view it is the appearance that is “real” and the name that is “false”; it is not our senses but our interpretations that are at fault; we do see the glitter (cf. BU. V. 14. 4), but are wrong in assuming that all that glitters is gold. An ascription of “unreality” to temporalia does not mean that appearances do not appear, but that we are mistaken in describing them as “things” and not simply as appearances, and misguided in trying to find out what they are instead of asking “of what?” are they the appearances (cf. ŚA. V. 8 = Kauṣ. U. III. 8); mistaken in assuming that these are the appearances of any thing, rather than of a protean no-thing “veiled in all things” (BU. II. 5. 18). It is it is not for the King to say (command) or do anything or everything he likes, but only what is “ordered to the end” and thus “correct” (*sādhú*, ŚB. V. 4. 4. 5). The King, in other words, is a *sādhaka*, whose “art” is the science of government, the “King's leading” or “policy” (*rājanīti*, *nītiśāstra*), in which the Purohita has been his Master: for “science” (*vidyā*, i. e. truth as distinguished from opinion) is a combination, or ensemble (*saṁhita* = *saṁdhi*), or in other words the child, of Intellect and Voice, both of which are essential to an enunciation of truth, and just as in the case of the macrocosmic and microcosmic harps, of which the concert (*saṁhitā*) of the player with the instrument is the force (*tviṣi*), so it is only the skilled speaker that “perfects the value of the Voice” (*kṛtsnaṁ vāgarthaṁ sādhayati*), and it is especially pertinent that it is said of him who understands this doctrine of the wedding of sound and meaning that “His renown fills the earth, men hearken to him when he speaks in the assemblies, saying: ‘Let this be done which he desires’” (ŚA. VII. 7, VIII. 9, 10, XIV). The essentially vocal character of government is well brought out in PB. XII. 10. 4, 5 where, when in the Rājasūya (quoting the text of RV. VIII. 70. 1, 2, “He who is the King of men, etc.”) it is said: “At that very point they reach the reign of the Voice (*rājyam . . . vācaḥ*), and thereby they betake the royal Sacrificer to his reign” (*rājyam evaitayā yajānaṁ gamayanti*).

First 49 of 303 passages. Read on

Linked texts (38)