The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v2.c39.s2.38

v2.c39.s2.38

A further element should doubtless be allowed for in the process of the evolution of the use of the term Brahman. Oldenberg,³ indeed, has denied that in the Veda there exists either the idea or the word for a supernatural power pervading the universe, akin to that power which in Melanesia is denoted by *mana*, among the Hurons by *orenda*, and variously in other parts of the world.⁴ It seems, however, unlikely that no such general idea should have appealed to the intellect of the Indians. If we accept, as we should, the view that individual powers are older in conception than manifestations of a universal power, still it seems natural to suppose that India developed the conception of a power common to the various gods, just as there was admitted the unity of the gods even by the time of certain Rigvedic hymns. This power, we may assume, was naturally denoted by the term Brahman, as a result of the extraordinary importance attached by priests to the prayers and spells which secured them their means of livelihood, and which served to propitiate the gods or to secure ends desired by their patrons or themselves. Other terms such as Māyā, which served in part to denote a power similar to *mana*, failed to be widely generalized. Asu possibly served the same purpose, if we believe the view of Güntert that Asura denotes primarily and properly the possessor of *mana*.¹