Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory of Government c2.s1.14

Language: English

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*).