The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v2.c39.s2.57

v2.c39.s2.57

Ingenious as is the theory, it is clear that it cannot claim acceptance as probable. The idea that fire pervades and constitutes the essence of the universe is based on the interpretation given to the Brahman; independent evidence is wholly lacking; Hertel cites only an Atharvan ⁷ passage in which it is stated that fire exists in the earth, the plants, the waters, stones, men, cattle, and horses, and an Avestan reference ⁸ to six fires which the Pahlavi tradition interprets as the fire in kings, the temple fire, and that of everyday use, the fire in the body of men and beasts, the fire in plants, the fire of lightning, and the fire in the paradise of Ahura Mazdāh. Neither of these passages even suggests that fire is the essential principle of the universe, and the only other proof, the etymology of Brahman, is extremely far from convincing. Not a single passage is adduced in which Brahman normally or naturally denotes fire, and the transfer of meaning alleged is harsh and implausible, for the alleged parallel of *ṛc* and *dhī* is quite unproved. The whole theory in fact rests on the overestimation of the terms light (*tejas* or *jyotis*) applied to the self, individual or cosmic, and insistence on treating them as essentially material. We have to deal with an early stage of intellectual effort, and with the great difficulty of expressing the nature of the self in anything but material terms, as well as with the fact that the Brahman is not an abstraction. It is something which embraces all, and which is manifested in the warmth of the body and in the heat of the sun. But it is manifested also in the breath of man and in the wind, and it is to exaggerate one element out of all proportion to find the fundamental reality in fire, even when that fire is deemed to be endowed with intelligence, and therefore to be much more than merely material.