Introduction

Existing rranslations of Vedic texts, however etymologically 'accurate', arewoofteo unintelligibleor unconvincing, sometimes admittedly unintellìgìblew rhe translator himself. Neìther me 'Sacred Books of the East', nor forexample such translations ofthe Upanisads as rhose dfRE. Hume, or thcseofMitra, Roer, and Cowell, recent1y reprinted, even approach the standardsset by such works as Thomas Taylor's versìon of the Enneads of Plotinus, orFriedHinder's ofMaimonides' GuideflJTthe Pe-plexed: Translators of rhe Vedasdo not seem ro have possessed any previous knowledge ofmetaphysics, butrather to have gained their first and only notìons of ontology frorn Sanskritscurces. Ali remarked byjung, Prychological Types, p. 263, with reference to thestudy of the Upanìsads under existing condìuons, 'any true perceptìon ofthequite exrraordlnary deptb of tbose ideas and their amazing psychologicalaccuracy is stili but a remote possìbìlity'.

It is very evidenr that for an understanding of the Vedas, a knowledge ofSanskrit, huwerJe7'frrofound, is insufficient. Indìans themselves do not rely upontheir knowledge of Sanskrit bere, but insist upon tbe absolure necessity ofstudyattbefeetofaguru. Thatìs not possible in the same sense for Europeansrudents. Yet Europe also possesses a tradition founded in first prìncìples.That mentalìty whìch in the twelftb and thirteenth centuries brought imobeing an intellecrual Chrìstìanity owing as much lo Maìmonìdes, Arlstotle,'and the Arabs as lo the Bible itself would not have found the Vedas 'difficult'.For exampìe, those who understood that 'Paternlty and filiation ... are~tproperties',or that God 'cannotbe a Person witbout a Nature, norcan his Nature bewìthouraPerson', Eckhart, 1.268and 394,2or had read laterDante's '0 Virgio Mother, daughter ofthy Son', Paradiso, xxxiii, would norhave seen in the rnutual generatìon of'Purusa and Viraj, or Daksa and Aditian arbitrary or primitive mode of thought: tbose familiar witb ChristianconceptionsofGodheadas 'void', 'naked', and 'as though ìtwere not', wouldnot have been disconcerted by descriptions ofThar as 'Death' (mrtyu) , andas being 'in nowìse' (neti, nea). To tbose who even te-day have some idea ofwhat is meant bya 'reconciliation cfopposhes', orhavepartly understood therelation betweerrman's conscious consciousness and the uncanscioussourcesofhis powers, the significance of the Waters as an 'inexhaustible welI' of tbe

IOne of our most ancient phìlosophers who found the truth long, long beforeGod's birth, ere ever there was Christian faith at ali as it ìs now, Eckhart, 1.103. Cf.Note 60.

"Except where otherwise stated, references to Eckhan are to C. de B. Evans'admirable versìon in two volumes, London, 1924.

24

possibilities ofexìstence mightbeapparent. When Blake speaksofa •MarriageofHeaven and Hell', orSwinburnewrites, 'I bidyou burbe', there isincludedmoreofthe vedas than can be found in manyleamed disquistitionson their'phìloeophy'. What right have Sanskritists 10 confine their labcurs to tbcsolutìon of linguistic problems: ìe il fear that preclude! their wresding withthe ideology of tbe texu they undertalte? OUr scholarship is 100 littlehumane.!

What I bave called here a 'new approach to tbc Vedas' 15 nothing morethan an essay in tbe exposìtìon ofVedic ìdeas by meana cf a translation anda commemaryìnwhich tbe resourcesofotherfonnsofthe unìversal traditionar-e taken for granted. Max Maller, in 1891, held that tbc Veda wouldcontinue te Decupy scholars 'for centuries 00. come'. Meanwhile there areothers besìde professional schclars, for whom the Vedas are sìgnìfìcam. Inany case, no great exrensìon ofour presentmeasure ofunderstariding can beexpected from philological research alone, however valuable auch methodaof research may have been in the past: and whar ili true for Sumero­Babyloilian religion ilino less true for the Vedas, viz., that 'furtber progressin the interpretation oftbedifficultcycle of. . . liturgies cannot be made untilthe cult is more profoundly Interpreted from the point ofview of the hilltoryof religion'."

As regards the translaticn: every English word employed has been usedadvisedly with respect to its technical aignificance. For example, 'nature' ishere always the correlative of 'essence', and denoted that whereby tbe worldis as it is; never as in modero colloquiai usage to denote the world, msnaluTata. Similarly, exìstence ìs distinguished Crom being, creation fromemanatìon, 10eaI movement from the principle of motion, the incalculablefrom the infinite, and so fortb. Alltbat is absofutely necessary if me sense ofme Vedic texre is to be conveyed. In addition, the few English words addedte complete the sense of the translation are italìcized: and when severalEnglish words are employed te render one Sanskrit term, the Englillh worcbare generally conaecred by hyphens, e.g. Aditya, 'Supemal-Sun'; Ak.pra,'Imperishable-Word'.

As regards tbe commentary: here I have simplyused tbe resources ofVedicand Christian scriptures side by side. An extended use ofSumerian, Taoist,Sufi, and Gnosticsources would have been atonce possible and illuminating,butwould have stretched tbe discussion beyond reasonable limits.5 AI for tbe

lI()n tbc one hand, tbe profeui.onal sch01ar, who hiU_direct acceu lOtbe sources,f~nctions in isolation: on tbe otber, tbe amateur propagandist of Indian thoughtduseminates mistaken notiom. Retween tbe [WO, no provision is made for tbeeducated man of good will.

"La.ngdon, S., Tanamu.t lind lshtar, Oxford, 1914, p. V."Il ilI- nol witboul good rea.wn tbal]ahAngir speab of'tbe science orthe Vedinta

which is tbe 5CieilceofSuflsm', Tv.ndf-i-jahll7Jgiri, traDilated by Rogers and Beveridge,I, p. 856. Parallels lO alm05l ali tbe ideas discUlsed below could be addueed {roml.slamic theology:see especia1ly Nichobon, RA, Stt.uliM mlsltuniempticistn, 1"921, and

25

Vedic and Christian 5OUrCe5, each ìllurnìnates the other. And that Is in itselfan important contribution 00 understanding, for as Whiunan expresses It,

'These are really the thoughts of all men in all ages and lands, they are notoriginai with me. If tbey are notyours as much as mi~e, tb~ are nothing, ornexr te nothing.' whatever may be asserted or demed with respect 00. the'value' or tbe Vedas, thia at least is certain, that their fundamental doctrìnes

are by no meana singular.

M'Weum ofFi1U Ans, Boston MANDA Il CooMARASWAMY

J)eeember 1932

Macdonald, D.B., T'h6~t oJtheidea oJspiri! in Islam., Acta Orientalia, IX, 1931.Il may be noted tbat tbe ontology ofa nQn-Christian tradition has been competentlydiscusled by these autbon in a way thath~ never been auempled by any professionalEllTopean slUdent of tbe Vedu.

Brhadàranyaka Upanisad, I, 2(= Satapatha Bràhmana X, 6, 5)

In the beginning (agre) no thing whatsoeverwas here. This-all (idam)was veiled by Dearh (mrryu), by Pnvation (aianaya): for Privation isDeath. That (tad) took-on (akuruta) Intellect (manas), 'Let me beSelfed' (iitmanvi S),am). He (salJ) , Self, manifested Light (arcan aramt).OfHim, as he shone, were tbe Waters (iipaJ;) born va,anta). 'Verily,whilst I shone, there was Delighr' (kam). saìd-He (in). This is the Sheen(arkatva) of Shining (ama). Verily, there is delight for hìm whoknoweth thus the sheen of shining. l.

Our text deals with the ongtn of Light from Darkness, Life from Death,Aetuality from Possibìlìry, Self from the Un-selfed, sagu1}a from nitgU~

Brahrnan, 'I am' from Unconscìousness, God from Godhead. 'The firstformaI assumption in Godhead is being .. God', Eckhart, 1.267. 'TheNothing bringeth itself into a Will', Bòhme, XL Q}testions conceming the Soule,1.178: 'an etemal will arìses in the nothing, to introduce the nothing intosomething, that the will might find, feel, and behold itself', Signatura Rernm,1.8. 'The Tao became One', Tao Ti Ching, II.42. 6

6A distinctìon of exìseence from pure being is easily made: 'being in itself ismodeless, 'exìstence' ìs being in a mode. Essence and nature, perse,are evidently non­existent: ìt need scarcely be added that mis 'non-existence', viz., me absence ofproperties, has nothing in common with me non-exìsrence of the absurd or self­contradictory, forexample, a square circle: it is not illogtcal, but alogtcal, orineffable,ali that can be said ofitbeing purely analogical. Nevertheless, the pracucal use of meterme Non-belng; Being, and Existence, presents real difficultìes.

We understand Non-being and Being to be correlative aspecu, me inseparableNature and Essence, ofBrahman, me Supreme Identity, not yet exìstent, antecedentto procession, sotus ante principium, aprovarlin. Ka~itaki Up., N.8: and understandExìstence to include alI muitiplicity, wherher nominai and informai, or real andformai. Non-beìng is me permissive princfple, firsr cause, of Being: Beìng thepermissive principle, fìrst cause, of Exìstence. Thus:

Non-being andtmya

(avy"""l lIifgu~a, amurla,A,,,, Being pamm-amum akdla: Brahman(tryakt-atryahta) '''''a

Sa,t=:)ce

protyag-dtmon sagu~ murla,(ViSve Deva1)., kiiia, sthita.viiva.bhuvaniJna) =",.

28 p~ o/w Vedas 29

Compare Taittiriya Up., II.7 .stIaYam aA:urut' atmanam 'of itself assumedSelf", and svayambhù, 'self-become.Upanìsads passim: Maitri up., V.2and II.5, 'In the beginning this world wasa Dark-Inert (tamal') ... that proceeds todifferentiation (V#amatva) ... even as the awakening of a sleeper.' That isEckhart's 'passive welling up': 'the beginning of the Father is primary, notproceeding', 'the Father is the manifestation ofthe Godhead' ,I. 268, 267and135.Just as also, microcosmicaIly, 'Without a doubt, consciousness is derivedfrom the unconscious' (Wilhelm andJong).

Now as te 'One': an intelligible distinction can be made between theineonnumerable UnityofGod 'witbouta second', the SamenessofGodhead,and tbe Identity, Deity, of God and Godhead, murta and amurla Brahman:'between the pillars of the conscìous and uneonscious ... ali beings and allwo~l~', Kabìr, Bolpur ed. II.59; 'One and One uniting, there is the SupremeBeing , Eekhart, 1.368. That these are here 'rational, not real' distinctions(Eckhart, 1.268) appearsin the fact that 'One' can be spoken equallyofUnity,Sameness, and Identity: God, Godhead, Deity, is not a distinction ofPersons.On the other hand, 'One' cannot be said of the Trinity as such, These dis­tinctions, nece~lyandclearlymade in exegesis, when literallyinterpreted,become defìnitions of sectarian points of view, theistic, nihilistic, andffi_etaphysicaI: ~n hhakti-vada tbe Unity, in sunya-vada tbe Sameness, in;nana­viidathe Identìtyare respeetivelypiiramiirthika, ultimate1y significant, In Saktcults there s~rvives an ontology antedating patriarchal modes of thoughiand ~e reIanon of tbe eonjoint principles is reversed (viparita) in gender.~ere.Siva, inert, effeeting nothing by himself, represents tbe Godhead, whileSaku, Mo~er of_~ Things, is tbe active power, engendering, preserving,and resolvmg, rdalSnot 'his' but 'hers'. In 'mysticism' tbere is an emotionalrealization ?f~1 or.an~oftbesepoints ofview. In reality, 'tbe patb men takefromeveryslde IS mme, BhagavadGità, IV.II, 'In whateverwayyou find Godbest and are most aware of him that way pursue', Eckharlo 1.482.

It should be ?bserved further tbat while we speak in tbeology' of FirsloSecond, and T~lrd Persons, tbe Persons being conneeted (bandhu, f!.gveda,X.I29.4, Brhadàra1J.yaR.a Up., 1.1.2) by opposite relation, 9 tbe numerical

. It follows ~at asat c.an be rendered correctly eitber aJl Non-being or as Non­ex.utence:s~eltberas ~emgor asExislence,asmaybestsuit tbe conlext. Tbe probleman:ses only In conneCOonwitb 'Being': d' we render asat and sat as Non-being andBemg, tb~, sat must cover both being in iUelfand Being in a mode. Tbe lenns arefurther ducussed below, pp. 85-6.

~ot tbat these are c.ommensurableterms:Tbeistic and Nihilioltic poinu ofviewarepama!, and.theref~re m apparent opposition, as for example in the case of Saivismand Buddhum; while Metaphysics,jnarn.vada, underlies,justifies, and embraces alIother points ofview.

8Fromtbe Vedic poin[ ofview, 'angelology' would be more accurate.gOnthis 'kinship' depends the 'incesmous' characlerofsomanymythsofcreation.

~t should ~ obseJVed th.at the tenn 'myth' property implies tbe symbolic (verbal,loonographlc or d~aOc) representation of the operation of power or energy:

orderingof'the Persona is purclyconventionai (samketita) ,notachronologicalor rea! arder of coming ìnto being: far tbe Persons are connascent,itamanJjanmana, the Trinity (trid/uj) is an arrangement (samhitii), not aprocesso Far example, the Son creates the Father as much as l;he Father theSon, 111 for there can be no paternity witbout a fìliation, and vice versa, and that~ what is meant by 'opposite relatiori'. Similarly, there cannat be a Person(Pu~)without Nature (Prakrtì), and via versa. Thatiswhy in metaphysical'mythoIogy' we meet with 'inverslons', as for example, ,:",hen in the flgveda.X.12.4,D~ (a personal name of the Progenitor, see Satapatha Bràhma':la.Il.4.4.2) is bom of Aditi as her son, and she aIso of him as his daughter; orX.90.5. where Viraj is bomof'Purusa, and viceversa. Metaphys~es are consistent,but not systematic: system is found only in relìgious extensions, II where agiven ordering of the Persons becomes a dogma, and j t is precisely by such'mauers of faitb', and not by a difference of metaphysieal basìs, tbat onereligion is distinguished from another, That is trulya 'distinction wìthout adifference. '

It should be observed that the eonnascence (sahajanma) ofFather-essenceand Mother-nature, the 'two fonns' of Brahman, though metaphoricaIlyspoken ofas 'birth' (janma) , ìs not a sexual-begetting, not a generation fromeonjoint principles, maithunya prajanana:. in mat sense both are equally un­begotten, un-born, as in SvetaSvatara up., 1.8.' dviivajau, or as implied in tbe

protons and electrons in this sense are 'mythical' beings. A myth, such as the Grailmyth,or the Birth ofBrahma, isneither a 'fairy tale' nor a 'mystery' in tM 1IIOI'Um Sm$1f

of the words, but simplya presentation. He wllo regards lhe myth or lcon as a state­ment offact, and he who regards it asfantasy,are equally misled:myth is lo history asuniversai to particular, rais07l d'itTt; to fitTe icon lo species as exemplar lO instance.Symbolism and imagery (jJTatao, protibimba, etc.) , the purest fonn of art, is the properlanguage of metaphysics: 'the symbolalwayspresupposes that the chosen expressionis the best possible description, or fonnula, of a relativelyunknown fact ... which isnone the leu known or postulated as existing.' (Jung). Traditional symbolismis alsomore nearly a universallanguage than any other'; the greater partof iu idiom is tbecommon property and inheritance of nearly ali peoples, and can be traced back atleast to tbe futb or sixtb millennium Be (cf. Wmckler, Die baUjumische Geiste.shultur,1907,Jeremias Htmdbu.ch da tzltarientalischm Ctristeshultur, 1929 and Langdon, &miticmythology, 1931), and to tbe beginnings of agriculture or tbere beyond.

10Cf. 'He hatb brought me forth His son in tbe image of His eternal fatherhood,that 1should also be a fatber and bring forth Him', Eckhan, C1aud Field's SmIrons,

p. 26;cf.JTIi.cited by Nìcholson, StudilfS .. . p. 112, 'I am the child whosefather ili hisson, and the winewhosevine ili iu jar.... 1met tbe motbers who bore me, and 1askedthem in marriage, and theylelme marry tbem.' 'Tbe Snake's Bull-Fatber-tbe Bull'sFather-snake' is cited by HarriIon. Proùgtmvna ... p. 495, (rom frg. ap. Clem(ent) ofAl(exandria) ,Protr., 1.2.12.Oragain, ofAgni, 'being tbe Son oftheAngels, tbou hastbecome tbeir Father', J.lwda. 1.69. l: Agni is tbe 'father of his father', ibid., VI.16.35,and 'whoever understands this (J/lStdvijdnat) is his father's fatber', Le. surpasses hisfatber.

llAlso, of coune, in science, 'philosophy', psychology, and other 'practical'disciplines. -

BrhadGm1Jyaka Up., 1.4.3 where the originarion of the conjoint principlescalled a 'falIingaparr', diremptìon,orkaryokinesis, dvedhGpata. 'One becameTwo', viz., Ym and Yang, Tao Ti Ching, Il.42.

00 the other hand, theìr common Son, Agni Brahmà-Prajàpati, etc., beingconsubstantialwith the Spirit (pm7Jfl) is atonce unborn in the sameseme, andboro by ageneration from tbe eonjoint prìncìples." Ooly the latter birth canbe thoughtofas an 'event' takìng place ar the dawn ofa creative cycle, in thebeginning, agre.

With respect to kam, 'Delight', 'Affirmation': Will (kama) or Fiat (.ryad)arethe moving power (c1ak§a, reriva) in ali processìon (krama, prasara'TJa), kiima

is the will-tc-Iife, 'so great indeed is kiima', Brhadara1Jyaka up., 1.1.17. Wìll,kilma, is an essential Dame of Cod: it is by his Will that his intrinsie-form(svariipa) sìgns and seals intrinsìc-nature (svabhiiva), Nature for her partdesiring formo So the single Will in Deity may be regarded from two points of

view, with respeet to essenee as the Will-spirit, and with respeet to nature asthe Cravìng": as Gandharva and Apsaras (: Urvasì, lJgveda, VII.33.11, and

Apra, X.13.4, Kamadeva and Rari, Eros and Psyehe; cf. V~!,u Purii1fll, 1.8.20and 33, where Nàràyana is 'Iove' (kama, labha, Tiiga) and Sn-Laksmr ìs 'destre'(iccha, tmW. mh).

These two aspeelS oftbe Will are plainly seen in tbe Vedie 'legend' oftbe

l!J-1eneethe constantuse ofessential names common to both, a certain indistinctionofFather and Son, the distinction ofPerson being lost in their unity of Godhead, ofthe eommon nature.

l!l"fhw, antecedent to procession:Person (Father)-Spirit (Will)-Nature (Mother)

and posterior to procession:Person (Father)-Nature (Mother)

" Spirit (Son, Life) /14See BOhme, MysteriumPamopmcum. I-ID. Onlywhen the Will is dual1y personified

as Kamadeva and Rati ean it be said that tbe Wùl-spirit and the Craving are aetuaIlydistinguished: eIsewhere, either 1uima represents tbe WiII as an undivided principle,or we must understand from the eontext whalwill is implied. In our text, especiallyvv. l and 4, where itisDeath, Privation, Godhead, that wilIs (syam, aluimayat)-a tbingtbat can only be coneeived analogically in the Not-Self-we muSI understand it is nottbe Will-spirit (ltama, libido, 'Iubet'), but the Craving (tr";f~ coveting, fatality, tbatwhieh 'draws a man on' when he is 'fey'); that is tbe desire ofNature (prakrtr) forintrinsic fonn (S'VGf'Ù:pa), tbe ardour of the Waters 'in their seasan',Pa~Bf'àhma1J6, VII.8.1, an uneonscious, funetional, dark will-to-life. In X.129. 4 (p. 79) onthe other hand, where ltama is identified with the 'primal seed (rnas) of ImeIleet(manal") '-noI, Le. tbegerminal sourceoflmeiIect, butthe germinai asp«toflntellecl,.sjHtrmatiJw$, the TlUaof/JgVtda, 1.164.8---the lightWill-spiritisdearlyimplied. Thetwo wills are immediately eorrelated and perfectly baIanced in unitary being:representing Hisknowledge ofhimself (in both sensesoftheverb to 'know'). In otberwords, tbe movement of the Will-spirit towards its object is tbe 'answer' lO tbe un­spoken 'wish' of the uneonsdous, as in IJgveda, 1.164. 8, 'He by Intelleet forewenther.' These consideratiom seem to solve the diflkulties felt by Keith, FWigz'on andPhiltMophy ofthe Veda, p. 436.

31

Birth ofV~lha,l~ and the PancavitiUa Brtihma1Ja passage cited below, p. 36.In the firat case Mìrra-varuneu is quite literally sedueed by tbe fascinations,of the Apsaras Urvaér: in the second, tbe Waters are literally 'in hear'. God

1"I,lgwda. VII.33.11, BrhadDevatti, V.148 and 149, and Sarvanuk,.-ama!;ii. 1.166: thechìld begouen ofMitrà-Vanll)au and tbe Waters ìs Vas4!ha, who like Brahmà makeshis appearance upon a lotus, Le. ìs estab1ished in ~e ~ate~. in [~e p~ssibi~ity ofexistence, end who ìs in fact the same as Brahmé-Prajàpati, as rightlyidenufied IDtheSatopatha BniJuJI(Jf.W, II.4.4.2, d. Nirukta. V.14. Hence VasÌl!!ha's patronymie Maitri­vartIlJi. Again in tbe AitaRya A.T~yaka, II.2.1 and2, Vasistha and other 'sages' areidentmed in various ways witb tbe progenitive Person and tbe positive exisrenceof ali things. In Atharvavtda, X8.20, the expression 'chumed forth' (nirmanthate),appropriate to Agni, tsused ofVasu (:VasÌl!!ha). The name VasÌl!lba (superlative ofvasu) seems to be rightlyunderstood.by the Commentatore to mean 'foremoetofthosewho dwefl. exist, orlive', either from root vas '10 assume a fonn', or root vm '10 lìve'.or 'abide in a given ccndìtìon'. Vasu ìsalso derivable from root vas to shine, giving thesecondaI)' meaning 'weahh'. Whatever the root. the meanings are not incompatible,ìnasmuch as to be unindigent oflife or exìsrence ìs the primary 'good'. Cf.Vasudhà,Vasudhari, Earth as 'MistressofWealth', 'Habundia', or 'UpbearerofLife' (Vasudhaalso e ~mi); and Vasudhara, K:rlP)a as 'Lord ofLife' in relation to Ràdhà, where

both meanings are implied.Like VasÌl!tha,Agni (VaiSvànara) isboro of, literally 'ehumed from' a lotus, i.e. tbe

Earth, 8gveda. VIJ6.13. Tbat is, as tbe e1ement ofFrre and as Saerificial fire in theTbree Worlds: for Agni as tbe Supreme Deity is tbe 'Father', being like Mitr.i.varuJ:\auseduced by the Waters, T4ittiriY4 Bnillln4f.W, 1.1.3.8, and Satapath4 BrOhmar,w. II.1.1.4 and 5. Needlèss [O point out that Mitra-VaruJ:\au, Sun, Fire, Spirit, etc., are alidenotations ofone and the samefrrs[ principle ofmanifestation, and that the Waters,often called the wives ofVaruJ:\a, or motbers in relation 10 tbe Son (Kumara, AgniVaiSvanara), are the possibilities of manifestation.

Parailei to the passages cited above is the myth of Pururavas and U~, IJgutda.X.95 (alro IV.2.12 and 18), and Satap4tha Bra/ima1Ja, XI.5J; tbeir son Ayu, 'Life',is identified in the ViijlUamyi SmMitii, V.2, with AgIli, Fire. Pururavas evidentlyeorresponds to Prajàpati, the 'firstsacrifieer', d. howin tbe SBr. passage he bringsfireto eanh byperfonning tbe (fust) sacrifiee, tha[ is after he has Iain again with UrvaSion 'the last night ofthe year' subsequent 10 their frrst intercourse, that means a yearof supemal rime, the duration of one cyde of manifestation, tbe 'Year' of ourUpanqad. By the sacrifiee, he who had been 'changed in fonn' and 'walked amongstmonals', and was tbus divided from UrvaSi (manifestation, or existenee necessarilyimplying a dirc:mption of essence and nature) he becomes a Gandharva, and isteunited with UrvaSi, that is he becomes again tbe pure Wdl-spirit in union with inobject. Thus he hM proceeded in rime, and nowreturns [O the unmanifest at tbe endof lime. Thus also Puniravas eorresponds [O Mitya (Vivasvat): Ayu may be compared10 Manu Vaivasvata Tbe 'mortality' ofPururavas does not mean tbat Pururavas was

'a man', but belongs [O his existenee as Universal Man, sagu1J6, martyaBrahman. Thatali this wasclearlyundentood is shown in eonnection witb the Soma sacrifice, whenin the ritual ofmaking fue, tbe upper and tbe lower twirling-stieb are addrc:ssed a.sPururavas and Urvaii, the pan ofghi (the food oftbe sacrifidal frre, wherc:by it exUu)asAyu, 'for UrvasiwastbeAp5aras, Purùravas her Lord, from their intercourse wasAyuboro. and now in like manner he (tbe llacrifieer) brings forth tbe sacrifice from theirunion', 5atapat1uJ.Bnih~ m.4.1.22.

Pere.ption ofthe Vtd(JS30