Introduction Existing wanslations of Vedic texts, however etymologically ‘accurate’, are (eooften unintelligible or unconvincing sometimesadmhittedly unintelligible to the translator himself, Neither the ‘Sacred Books of the East’, nor for ‘example such translations of the Upanisads as those of RE, Hume, or those OfMitra, Roes, and Cowell, recently reprinted, even approach the standards set by such works as Thomas Taylor's version of the Enneads of Plotinus, ot FriedLinder’s of Maimonides’ Guide forthe Perplexed. Translators of the Vedas do not seem to have possessed any previous knowledge of metaphysics, but rather to have gained their first and only notions of ontology from Sansksit sources, Asremarked by Jung, Prychological Types, p. 268, with reference tothe study of the Upanisads under existing conditions, any true perception of the quite extraordinary depth of those ideas and their amazing psychological accuracy is still but a remote possibility’. Tis very evident that for an understanding of the Vedas, a knowledge of Sanskrit, however profound, is insufficient. Indians themselves do notrely upon, their knowledge of Sanskrit here, but insist upon the absolute necessity of study at the feet ofa guru Thatis not possible in the same sense for European students. Yet Europe also possesses a tradition founded in first principles. ‘That mentality which in dhe twelfth and thirteenth centuries brought into being an intellectual Christianity owing as mucti to Maimonides, Aristotle,’ and the Arabsas o the Bibl itself, would nothave found the Vedas ‘difficult’. For example, those who understood that ‘Paternity and filiation . . . are dependent properties’ or that God ‘cannot be a Person without a Nature, nor ‘can his Nature be withouta Person’, Eckhart, 268 and 394 tor had read later Dante's ‘O Virgin Mother, daughter of thy Son’, Paradiso, xxxiti, would not have seen in the mutual generation of Puruisa and Viraj, or Daksa and Aditi an arbitrary or primitive mode of thought: those familiar with Christian conceptions of Godhead as void’, ‘naked! ,and’'asthoughitwerenor’, would not have been disconcerted by descriptions of That as ‘Death’ (mryu), and as being ‘in no wise’ (nef, net). To those who even today have some idea of ‘Wwhatismeantbya ‘reconciliation of opposites’, orhave partly understood the relation berween!man’s conscious consciousness and the wrconscious sources ofhis powers, the significance of the Waters asan ‘inexhaustible wel!’ of the ‘One of our most ancient philosophers who found the truth long, long before Sos ir recor tere wns Citi ah al am eka 108. ‘Except where otherwise stated, references to Eckhart are to C. de B. Evans’ ‘admirable version in eve volumes, London, 1924.24 Porapion ofthe Vedas Possibilities ofexistence might be apparent. When Blake speaksofa’ Marriage of Heaven and Hell’, or Swinburne writes, Ibid you but be’, chere is included ‘more of the Vedas than can be found in many learned disquistitions on th ‘philosophy’. What right have Sanskritsts to confine their labours to the solution of linguistic problems: is it fear that precludes their wrestling with the ideology of the texts they undertake? Our scholarship is too little ‘humane? ‘What I have called here a ‘new approach to the Vedas' is nothing more chan an essay in the exposition of Vedic ideas by means of a translation and ‘commentaryin which the resourcesof other formsof the universal tradition are taken for granted. Max Miiller, in 1891, held that the Veda would continue to occupy scholars ‘for centuries to come’. Meanwhile there are ‘others beside professional scholars, for whom the Vedas are significant. In any case, no great extension of our present measure ofunderstanding can be expected from philological research alone, however valuable auch methods of research may have been in the past’ and what is true for Sumero- Babylonian religion is no Jess crue for the Vedas, viz, that ‘further progress in the interpretation of the difficult cycle of... liturgies cannot be made until the cultis more profoundly interpreted from the point of view of the history of religion’ AAs regards the translation: every English word employed has been used advisedly with respect to its technical significance. For example, ‘natute’ is here always the correlative of ‘essence’, and denated that whereby the world is as it is never as in modem colloquial usage to denote the world, ens ‘naturata. Similarly, existence is distinguished from being, creation from ctnanation, local mavement from the principle of motion, the incalculable from the infiniee, and so forth, All that is absolutely necessary if the sense of the Vedic texts is to be conveyed. In addition, the few English words added to complete the sense of the translation are italicized: and when several English words are employed to render one Sanskrit term, the English words are gencrally connected by hyphens, eg. Aditya, ‘Supernal Sun’; Aksara, “Imperishable Word’. Asregards the commentary: here I have simply used the resources of Vedic and Christian scriptures side by side. An extended use of Sumerian, Taoist, S0fi, and Cnosticsources would have been atonce passible and illuminating, ‘but would have stretched the discussion beyond reasonable limits As for the *On the one hand, the professional scholar, who has direct access tothe sources, functions in isolaion: on the other, the amateur propaganclst of Indian thought disseminates mistaken notions. Between the ‘wo, no provision it made for the educated man of good will. “Langdon, S,, Tarmut and Ishtar, Oxford, 1914, p.v. “Tes mot without good reason that Jahangir speaks of ‘the science of the Vedanta which isthe seience of Sufi’, Tusd-Jahngid, tranalated by Rogers and Beveridge, 1, p. $56. Parallels to almost all the ideas discuned below could be adduced from. Islamic theology: ee expecially Nicholyon, RA, Studia n lane mpsticim, 1921, and ‘Tha VadaoBesays in Translation and Esrgsis 25 ‘Vedic and Christian sources, each illuminates the other. And thats in itself an important contribution to understanding, for as Whitman expresses it, “These are really the thoughts ofall men in all ages and lands, they are not original with me. If they are not yours as much as mine, they are nothing, or next to nothing," Whatever may be asserted or denied with respect to the ‘value’ of the Vedas, chis at least is certain, that their fundamental doctrines are by no means singular. Museum ofFine Ans, Baston December 1932 ‘Ananba K. COOMARASWAMY Macdonald, D.B., The devdopmentof the ides of mini in Islam, Acta Orientalia, TX, 1981. emay be noted that the ontology of a non-Christian tradition has been competently discussed by these authors in away that hay never been attempted by any professional European student of the Vedas.Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, I, 2 (= Satapatha Brabmana X, 6, 5) In the beginning (agre) no thing whatsoever was here. Thisall (idam) was veiled by Death (mtyu), by Privation (asandya): for Privation is Death. That (tad) tookon (akurwia) Intellect (manas), ‘Let me be Selfed (atmanvi sym). He (sah), Self manifested Light (arcan acarat). Of Him, as he shone, were the Waters (apal) born (jayanta). ‘Verily, whilst] shone, there was Delight’ (kam), said-He (iti). Thisis the Sheen (arkatua) of Shining (arka). Verily, there is delight for him who knoweth thus the sheen of shining, 1. Our text deals with the origin of Light from Darkness, Life from Death, ‘Accuality from Possibility, Self from the Unselfed, saguna from nirguna Brahman, ‘I am’ from Unconsciousness, God from Godhead. "The first formal assumption in Godhead is being . . . God’, Eckhart, 1.267. "The Nothing bringeth iseifinto a Wil’, Bonme, XZ Questions concerning the Soule, 1178: ‘an eternal will arises in the nothing, to introduce the nothing into something, that the will might find, feel, and behold itself, Signatura Rerum, L8, ‘The Tao became One’, Tao Té Ching, U.42.° +A distinedion of existence from pure being is easily made: “being in itself is _modelese, existence’ is being ina mode, Essence and nature, pers ate evidently non existent: it need scarcely be added that this ‘non-existence’, viz., the absence of properties, has nothing in common with the non-existence of the absurd oF self: contradictory, for example, a square circle; itis not illogical, butalogical, or ineffable, all that can he said of tbeing purely analogical. Nevertheless, the practical use of the terms Non being, Being, and Existence, presents real difficulties. ‘We understand Non-being and Being to be correlative aspects, che inseparable Nauure and Essence, of Brahunan, the Supreme Identity, not yet existent, antecedent to procession, solus ante prinapium, apravartin, Koustaki Up, V8: and understand Existence to include all multiplicity, whether nominal and informal, or real and formal. Non-being is the permissive principle, first cause, of Being: Being the Permissive principle, first cause, of Existence. Thus: Non-being (ouyakia) ingen amirta, Asst | Being ahi: Beahunan (eyaktepatia) sabsa Sat Existence ‘pratyegctman agua, marta, (eyahie) (ite Devah, Ala stita, viind bhuvandn) marta28 Pocpton ofthe Vas Compare Taitiriya Up, 11.7 seqyam akurut’ diminam ‘of ivelf assumed Seif, and svayambhi, 'seif become’ Upanisads pauin: Maite Up, V.2 and Il 5, "In the beginning this world was a Dark-Inert (tama)... that proceeds to differentiation (visamatva) ... even 2s the awakening of a sleeper.’ That is Eckhar's ‘passive welling up’: ‘the beginning of the Father is primary, not proceeding’, 'the Father isthe manifestation of the Godhead’. 268, 207 and 135, Justasalso, microcosmically, ‘Without doubt, consciousnessis derived from the unconscious’ (Wilhelm and jung) Now as to ‘One’: an intelligible distinction can be made between the inconnumerable Unity ofGod ‘withouta second’, the Sameness of Godhead, and the Identity, Deity, of God and Godhead, maria and amiria Brahman’ “berween the pillars ofthe conscious and unconscious... all beings and all worlds’, Kabir, Bolpur ed. IL59; One and One uniting, thereis the Supreme Being’, Eckhart, 1.868. That these are here ‘rational, net real’ distinctions (Eckhar, 268) appearsin the factthat“One' can bespoken equally of Unity, Sameness, and Identity: God, Godhead, Deity isnotadistinction of Persons. On the other hand, ‘One" cannot be said of the Trinity as such. These dis tinctions, necessarily and clearly made in exegesis, when literallyinterpreted, become definitions of sectarian points of view, theistic, niblistic, and :metaphysical: in bhakt-vdda the Unity, in sinya-véda the Sameness, in jhdna- suédathe Identity are respectively pavamérthka, ulimately signitcant. In Sakta ‘cults there survives an ontology antedating patriarchal modes of thought, and the relation of the conjoint prinetples is veversed (uipartia) In gender: here Siva, ery, effecting nothing by himself, represents the Godhead, while Sakti, Mother of AN Things, is the active power, engendering, preserving, and resolving, fis not ‘his’ but ‘hers’ In ‘mysticism’ there is an emotional realization ofall or any of these points of view. In realty, ‘the path men take from everyside is mine’, Bhagavad Gi, IV-11, "In whatever way you find God best and are most aware of him that way pursue’, Eckhart, 1482. It should be observed further that while we speak in theology? of First, Second, and Third Persons, the Persons being connected (dandhu, Reveda, X.1294, Bphadaranyaka Up., 11.2) by opposite relation, the numerical Te follows that asa can be rendered correc either as Non-being or as Noo ‘innencestetherasBeing 0 asExistence,asmay besautthe context. The problem arises only n connection with ‘Being we render aio and sat as Nan-being and Being, then, setmst cover both being in iwelf and Being in a mode. The ters are further discussed betow, pp. 854, ‘Not:hathese are commensurable terms: Theistic and Nihilist pin ofview are Partial and therefore in apparent opposition, as for example inthe case of Saath snd addhism, while Meuphye, nonin unde uses, and embraces all er point of view "Brom the Vedic pint of view, ‘angclology’ would be more accurate, *Onthia'kimhip' depeadsthe “incestous characterofsomanymythsof creation. Ue should be observed that che term ‘mph’ property implies dhe symbole (tba, fonographic ot dramatic) represataion Of the operation of power or encrey ‘The Vedas Essays in Translation and Exapesis 29 ordering ofthe Personsispurely conventional (saridetita), nota chronological or real order of coming into being: for the Persons are connascent, tarearajanmina, the Trinity (tridhé) is an arrangement (sarihita), not a process. For example, the Son creates the Father as much as the Father the Son,'"for there can be no paternity withoutafiliation, and wiceversa, and that E that is meant by ‘opposite relation’. Similarly, there cannot be a Person {(Purusa) without Nature (Prakrt), and vice vesa. Thatiewhy in metaphysical ‘mythology’ we meet with ‘inversions’, as for example, when in the Raveda, X.72.4, Daksa (a personal name of the Progenitor, see Sotapatha Brahmana, 114.4.2) is born of Aditi as her son, and she also of him as his daughter; or X.90.5. where Virdjisborn of Purusa, and viceversa, Metaphysics are consistent, but not systematic: system is found only in religious extensions,” where a given ordering of the Persons becomes a dogma, and itis precisely by such ‘matters of faith’, and not by a difference of metaphysical basis, that one religion is distinguished from another. That is truly a ‘distinction without a difference. Itshould be observed thatthe connascence (schajanma) of Father-essence and Mother-nature, the ‘two forms’ of Brahman, though metaphorically spoken of as birth’ (janma), isnota sexual-begetting, nota generation from conjoint principles, maithunya prajanana: in that sense both are equally un- begotten, unborn, as in Svetdfuatara Up., 8: dudvajau, or as implied in the ‘rows and clecrons in dis save are ‘mya beings A niyls, sls we he Gra Inyth, or the Birth of Brahms, jemethera airy ale’ nora-royatry inthe moder ese ofthe words, bat simply a presentation. He who regard the myth or icon asa state tment offactand he who regardaitasfantany, are eqally misled: rth to history as linkers to particular, ris de to are icon to species as exemplar co instance. Shnbolism and imagery (jaca, paint ee), the purest formof ar isthe proper lnguage of metaphysis the symbol always presuppose thatthe chosen expresion isthe bes posible description, ot formula, ofa reatvely unknown fact. which ie ‘none the less known or postulated as existing.’ ( Jung). Traditional symbolism is also ‘more nearly a universal language than any other; the greater part of its idiom is the common property and inheritance of nearly ll peoples, and can be trace back at least o the fit or sixth millennium sc (cf. Wincker, Dis babylonsch Gees, 1907, Jeremias Handbuch des altrienaichn Gest, 1999 and Langdon, Semitic -ythlogy, 1981), and 0 the beginnings of agriculture of thee beyond. CE. ‘He hath brought me forth His son in the image of His ecernal fatherhood, that I should also be a father and bring forth Him’, Eckhart, Claud Field's Sermons, 26; cf J, cited by Nicholson, Studia... 112, ‘Iam the child whove father isis ton, and the wine whote vine isitsjar....1metthe mothers who bore me, and Tasked ‘hernin marrage, and they let me mary them, “The Snake'sBulrFather—dhe Bul atheranake'is ted by Haron, Progen... p45, from fg. ap. Clement) of Allexandra), Por, 12.12. Or again, of Agni, being the Son ofthe Angels thow hast, ‘become their Father’, Rusia, 1.69. 1: Agni is the “father of his father’, ibid., VI.16.35, and ‘whoever undervands thi (yada) i his father’s father’. surpasses hit father. "Also, of course, in science, ‘philosophy’, psychology, and other ‘practical’ iaciplines30 Peroption ofthe Vedas Brhadareyyaka Up., L4.3 where the origination of the conjoint principles ‘alleda falling apart’, diremption,or karyokinesis, dvedhd-pata ‘One became Two", viz, Yin and Yang, Tao Té Ching, 1.42. ‘On theother hand, theircommon Son, Agni Brahma Prajapati,etc. being consubstantal with the Spirit (prana) isatance unborn in thesamesense, and born bya generation from the conjoint principles." Only the latter birth can be thought of asan ‘event' taking place at the dawn ofa creative cycle, in the beginning, agra ‘With respect to kam, ‘Delight’, 'Aifirmation’: Will (kama) or Fiat (sydd) are the moving power (daksa, reiva) in all procession (hrama, frasarana), hima is the willtorife ‘so great indeed is kama’, Brhadaranyaka Up., 1-417. Will, ‘kama, is an essential name of Gods; it is by his Will that his intrinsic-form {(suartpa) signs and seals intrinsic nature (svabhava), Nature for her part desiring form. So the single Will in Deity may be regarded from two points of, view, with respect to essence as the Willspirit, and with respect to nature as, the Craving" as Gandharva and Apsaras (= Unvast, Reveda, VIL.33.11, and Apya, X.13.4, Kamadeva and Rati, Eros and Payche; cf. Visnu Purina, 18.20 and 38, where Narayana is‘love’ (Ama, lobha, raga) and Sri-Laksmtis ‘desire’ (Gcchd, tend, rat). “These two aspects of the Will are plainly scen in the Vedic ‘legend of the Hence the constantuse of estentialnamescommon toboth. aceriain indistinetion ‘of Father and Son, the distinction of Person being lost in their unity of Godhead, of the common nature "Thus, antecedent to procession: Person (Father)—Spirit (Will) Nature (Mother) ‘and posterior to procession: Person (Father)—Nature (Mother) \ spirit (Son, Life) 7 “See Bohme, Mystrium Pansophicur, Ill. Only when the Willis dually personified ‘as Kamadeva and Rati can it be suid that the Wil-spirit and the Graving are actualfy distinguished: elsewhere, either kima represents the Will as an undivided principle, fore must understand from the context what willis implied. In our text, especially vw. Land 4, where itis Death, Privation, Godhead, that wll (syd, ekdmayal)—a thing. that can only be conceived analogically inthe Not Seli—we must undersandit isnot the Willspirit (Ama, Hbide, “hubet’), but the Craving (trad, coveting, fatality, that ‘which ‘draws a man on’ when he is ey’); that is the desire of Nature (prakrt) for intrinsic form (seripa), the ardour of the Waters ‘in their season’, Paicaviskia ‘Bréhmara, VILB.1,an unconscious, functional, dark willie. In X.199. 4 (p.79} on the other hand, where kama is identified with the ‘primal seed (reas) of Intellect {manas)'—not,ie. the germinal soureof ncellect, butthe germinal aspecoflntellect, logesspematko, the rasaof Rgveda, 1.164. 8—the light Wilpiritsclearlyimplied. The ‘wo willy are immediately correlated and perfectly balanced in unitary being: representing His knowledge of himself (in both sensesof the verbto know’). Inother words, the movement of the Wilspisit:owards is object isthe ‘answer’ to the un- spoken ‘wish’ ofthe unconicious, asin Rueda 1.164. 8, "He by Intellect forewent her. Thete considerations seem to solve the difficulties fel by Keith, Religion and Philosophy ofthe Vala p. 436. ‘The VadonBusays in Translation and Begsis 3 Birth of Vasistha," and the Pafavitiia Bréhmana passage cited below, p. 36. In the first case Mitra-Varunau is quite literally seduced by the fascinations, of the Apsaras UrvaG in the second, the Waters are literally “in heat’. God "guna, VILS3.11, Bphad Devaté, V-148 and 149, and Sarvdnubramani, L166; the «child begotien of Miu&Varupatt and the Waterss Vasisiha, who like Brahma makes fis appearance upon a lotus, Lc is established inthe Waters, in che possiblity of Dustenee, and who isin fact the same as Brahms Prajapat, as rightly entfiedin the Setepatha Bribmen, 1.44.2, cf. Nirukta V.14. Vence Vasistha’s patronyinic Maitra- Jani Again in the Ailarya Arangaka, 1.2.1 and 2, Vasiha and other ‘sages’ are Jdentified in various ways with the progenitive Person and the positive existence ofall things. In Athorvaveda, X.8.2, the expresion ‘churned forth (nivmanthal), Sppropriate to Agni, is used of Vasu (-Vatigtha). The name Vasa (tuperlative of TER) acemstobe rightly understood bythe Commnentatorsto mean ‘Toremostofthote Arbo dwell, exist, or ive’ either from root vas'to assume a form’, oF root vaso live’ Ur abidein a given condition’. Vaeuisalio derivable from root vasto shine, giving the Secondary meaning ‘wealh” Whatever he root, the meanings are notincompatble, Jratimuch as to be unindigent of ife or existence is the primary ‘good! Cf. Vamidha, ‘Vasudharé, Earth as'Mistress of Wealth’, ‘Habun¢ia',or ‘Upbearer of Life’ (Vasudh abo = Lakyi); and Vasudhara, Kryoa a8 ‘Lord of Life’ in relation to Radha, where ‘both meanings are implied. ‘Like Vasis ha, Agni (Vaifvinara) is born of, literally ‘churned from’ alors, i.e. the Earth, Revd, VI.16-18. That i, atthe element of Fire and as Sacrificial fire in the “Three Worlds for Agnias the Supreme Deityisthe ‘Father’, being ike MiuVarunau teduced by the Waters, Fate ranana 1.1.5.8, and Satapadia Brctowpe. H1-1 {Cand 5, Needless to point out that Mitré-Varunau, Sin, Fite, Spirit, ete are all denotations ofone and the sane fist principe of manifestation, and thatthe Waters, ‘often called the wives of Vania, of mothers in relation to the Son (Rumsra, Agni Vaiivanara), are the posibiltes of manifestation. Parallel (othe passages cited above is the myth of Purtravas and Urvai, Revd X26 (also IV.238 and 18), and Satapatha Brikman XL5.1; their son Ayu, “fe is identified in the V@jsaneyi Sold, V.2, with Agni, Fire, Puraravas evidently correspondsto Prajapai the frst sacriicer cf howin the SB. passage he bringsfire toearth by performing the (first) sacrifice, that safer he has lain again with Urvast ‘onthe lastnight ofthe year’ subsequent i their firstintercourse, that means 2 year fof supernal time, the duration of ane cycle of manifestation, the "Year" of our ‘Upaniqad. By the sacrifice, he who had been ‘changedin form’ and ‘walked amongst ‘moralr, and was thus divided ftom Urvaii (manifestation, or existence necessarily ‘implying a diremption of essence and nature) he becomes a Gandharva, and is reunited with Ura, that it he becomes again the pure Willsprit im union with is ‘object Thus he has proceeded in time, and now returns othe unmanifestat the end ‘of ime. Thus also Purdravas corresponds to Aditya (Vivasvat): Ayu may be compared to Manu Vaivanvata The ‘morta’ of Puriravas does not mean that Puriicavas was “aman’,butbelongsto his existence as Universal Man, saguna, maryaBrahiman. That all this was clearly understood is shown in connection with the Soma sacrifice, when ‘in the ritual of making fire, the upper and the lower ewithng-sicks are addressed as Purtraas and Urea, the pan of pi (dhe food ofthe sacrificial ie, whereby it exit) asAyu, for Urva was the Apsarss,Purtravasher Lord from theirimercourse wasAyu ‘born, and now in like manner he (the sariicer) brings forth the sacrifice from ‘union’, Satopathe Brihmona, 11.4.1.22.32 Pereepion ofthe Vidas thus affirms himself because itis his nature so to come forth: existence is knowledge of himself, that is his eating of the fruitof the tee, for to eat isto exist In other words, the possibility of existence necessarily involves the fact The relations between Vieasvant (the mortal Sun) and Sarapya (in person or repretented by a sqvarnd) are the same at those of Purdravas and Unvasi: Ayu ‘corresponding to Yama-Yami, Manu and the Aivins. Iemay be added that -revas in Puriravas, and Ravi, ‘Sun’ are from the same Vina (o ‘roars the notion being that ofthe roaring of the Cosmic Fire (Revie, V.2.10), which ig the purring of the World-Wheel, the Music of the Spheres. Ci. Maisi Up, 116 (6) Note that the designation of the upper firestick, pramantha, corresponds to ‘Prometheus’, The correspondence between the myths of PurOravas and Urvail and Eros and Pryche is evident. Prometheus is postHomeric, the myth of Eres and Payche only in Apuleius pro-Vmath occurs first in Stat, corresponding to nir-Vmath in Vedic unge. The importance ofFice and Water in early Greek philosophy may well reflect Oriental, that is immediately, Persian influences, cf Harrison, Thani 1997, 'p. 461. Itmaybe noted that the correspondence of Promethets with framanthais fa ‘more than merely etymological, Prometheus, ike Agni, isthe child of Earth, and the ‘Okeanids who sympathize with him (inthe Prometheus of Aeschykus) are his blood Sin, for he birth of Fire on Earth is but one remove from his sourcein the Waters. Like ‘Uniafi, thete Okeanids appear to him in the form of birds, and ‘Okeanos is much ‘ore than Ocean’. ‘As for the diremption of earner and natute (represented i our mapthe met Gee pe ues ome ot