Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory of Government c2.s1.158

c2.s1.158

We begin to see now why the words (*ṛc*) should be studied (*adhīyīta*, i. e. like all other symbols, as supports of contemplation, *dhiyālamba*) in their *saṁhitā* form, that form in which they are sung, and in which alone are they “life-giving” (*āyuṣya*, ŚA. VIII. 11), i. e. productive of *dīrgham āyus* here (the life of 100 years) and hereafter (imperishable immortality). It is because the reconstitution (*ātmasaṁskṛti*) of the disintegrated and manifold self effected in the Sacrifice (for which the Chant is absolutely indispensible, TS. II. 5. 8. 4) is essentially metrical: “the sacrificer perfects himself as composed of the metres” (*chandomayaṁ vai . . . ātmānaṁ saṁskurute*, AB. VI. 27, Keith’s rendering), and is thus a “perfected Self” (*sukṛtātman*, Taitt. U. II. 7): Prajāpati, broken up in the emanation of his children (cf. ŚB. X. 5. 2. 16 on the One and the Many) “unifies himself by means of the metres” (*chandobhir ātmānaṁ samadadhāt*, AA. III. 2. 6 and ŚA. VIII. 11), i. e. “synthesises” the manifold self with the simple Self (the rebel with the rightful sovereign). Similarly, in the *samādhi* of the Yogaśāstra where there is a reconciliation and “synthesis” of hostile selves, and in the *samādhi* of the Arthaśāstra where *samādhi-* or *saṁdhi-karaṇa* is the making of a treaty of peace and alliance (also explained as a *saṁbhavana*, a term so often employed in connection with marital alliances) between two powers that have been at war, and the converse *samādhi-* or *saṁdhi-mokṣa* (= *saṁdhi-bheda*) is the dissolution or breaking of such a treaty and analogous to the grammatical *saṁdhivivartana* = *padaccheda*, the “divorce” of fused words; it will be seen that I cannot wholly agree with Edgerton’s rendering of *samādhi* by “hostage” (see his “*Samādhi*, ‘Hostage’ . . . ,” in *JAOS* 60. 208 ff.) but rather hold that the *samādhi* is a “treaty of peace” commonly ratified or secured by an exchange of gifts or “deposits” (*āhita*), not excluding those of persons such as a daughter given in marriage (rather as a pledge than as a hostage); the pledges or hostages are given when the peace is made, and there is nothing to show that any such hostages were held while the fighting was going on, which hostages could be "released." In any case all these "agreements" are analogous to that of the "two selves" of Mitrāvaruṇau and all those other aspects of the union of contrary principles, in which there is always an exchange of gifts, each giving something of its own to the other: all these ἐρωτικά are makings of harmony and order where díscord had been, and we can say with Dionysius (*De div. nom.* IV. 5) that "all alliances and friendships are because of the beautiful": this will apply, for example to the "alliance" of words in grammatical *saṁdhi*, for the metrical *saṁhitā* texts are assuredly beautiful, the mere words (*ṛc*) being the "evil" of the chant, and *kalyāṇa* the opposite of *pāpman* as is *pulcher* of *turpis*.