A new approach to the Vedas : an essay in translation and exegesis

NOTES

81 Cf. Brhadaranyaka Up., V, 15, where the entrance (mukha) to the verity (satya) is said to be closed by the golden orb (paiva) and prayer is made to Pusan to discover that entrance to him whose principle (dharma) is the Verity (satya): and Chandogya Up., V, 10, 2, where a Superhuman Person (amanava purusa), who is Agni-vaidyuta, ‘ of the Lightning,” ‘‘ leads them on to Brahman, this is the angelic voyage.”

Similarly in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brahmana, I, 5, passage is represented first as barred to the soul on ethical grounds, but when she answers to the Angel (Agni, or Agni-Rudra), “ Thou it was, not ‘I’ that did the deeds,” she proves herself a Comprehensor of the Self, proves that she is emancipate from individuality, proves that like her guide she is amanava, no longer thinking in human modes, and the way lies open. The doctrine as to “ Works ” of the Bhagavad Gita is identical, though presented with some devotional colouring: thus, IIT, 30, “* Casting off all thy works npon Me,” IV, 13, “‘ I (God) am the doer of works, but they defile Me not, who have no ends to be attained,”

Y, 36, ‘‘ Even though thou be the most evildoer of all sinners, thou mayst by the ship of Understanding be brought across all evil,’ V, Io, “ He who in doing works lays his works on Brahman and puts away attachment is undefiled,” VI, 29, ‘“ Who sees Me in all things, and all things in Me, I am not lost to him nor he to me.” These are metaphysical equivalents to the religious doctrines of forgiveness and remission of sins, salvation by faith, etc.: “‘ Come unto Me, all ye that are weary and heavy laden (sc. with the burden of sin) and I will give you rest.’ Ii from the religious or ethical point of view it be objected that in the metaphysical formulation nothing is said about repentance, the answer is that that very Understanding by which the notion of individuality (abhimana, etc.) is transformed, is in itself and quite literally a repentance, a turning-away-from (nivrtt1) these Worlds wherein alone are moral values valid.

82 Union with Brahma, or with the Buddha in Glory (Sambhogakaya), though it implies a sharing of the throne and sovereignty of God, is always clearly distinguished from emancipation (mukti, nirvana), cf. Sayana on Aitareya Arvanyaka, II, 3, 7 (citing also Brhadaranyaka Up., IV, 1, 2) and Sankaracarya on Brahma Sitra, IV, 4, 22.

That is also made very clear in Maitvi Up., VI, 30, where the Comprehensor passes through the Solar region tothe Brahma-world and there beyond to the “ ultimate station,’ param gatt. In Buddhism, it is pointed out that even the highest of Buddha-paradises (Sambhogakaya-plane), is but a resting-place (visvama), not a Return (nivrti) Saddharma-Pundarika, V, 74, 75- Similarly for Eckhart, I, 274, 276, the soul in heaven is “not yet dead and gone out into that which follows created existence . . . as this is not the summit of divine union, so it is not the soul’s abiding place.”

83 “To, God de-spirited’’ (aprdna, nirv-vata), Eckhart, I, 469. Tirumilar, “they lose themselves and become idle.”

84 Cf. Byhadavanyaka Up., Xl, 4, 1, “‘ it is for love of the Self alone that all things are dear’’: that is, ‘ In the love wherein God loves himself therein he loves all things . . . in the joy wherein God enjoys himself, therein he enjoys all creatures,’’ God is in all things self-intent, “the good man . . . formed in the image of God . . . loves for his own sake,’’ Eckhart, I, 142, 380 and 66, “ the love is to the lover and comes back most to him . . . itself only finally satisfies the soul,’’ Walt Whitman.

85 From Claude Field’s version of selected Sermons, p. 28.