^{page 339 note 2} This passage is quoted at length in Sanskrit Texts, iv. 131–136Google Scholar.

^{page 341 note 1} The same functions are ascribed to Vishṇu and to Rudra. See Sanskrit Texts, iv. pp. 84 and 338Google Scholar.

^{page 341 note 2} So, too, Soma is called prajâpati, “lord of creatures” (R.V. ix. 5, 9Google Scholar).

^{page 342 note 1} So, too, in R. V. x. 170, 4Google Scholar, Sûrya is called viṣvakarman and viṣvadevyavat.

^{page 342 note 2} In the same way it is said, A. V. xiii. 3, 13Google Scholar: “Agni becomes in the evening Varuṇa (the god of night), and Mitra, when rising in the morning. Becoming Savitṛ, he moves through the atmosphere, and becoming Indra, he burns along the middle of the sky.” In xiii. 4, 1 ff., Savitṛ is identified with a great many other deities. The words asya devasya … vayâḥ Vishṇoḥ, in R. V. vii. 40, 5Google Scholar, are interpreted by Sâyaṇa to mean “[The other gods] are branches of this … god Vishṇu;” but the words between brackets are not in the original.

I observe that in his lectures on the “Science of Language,” 2nd ser. p. 508Google Scholar, Prof. Müller understands the words with which all the verses of R. V. iii. 55Google Scholar, conclude (mahad devünüm asuratvam ekam) to signify, “The great divinity of the gods is one,” as if they asserted all the gods to be manifestations of one supreme deity. The clause, however, need not mean anything more than that the divine power of the gods is unique.

^{page 342 note 3} Compare Æschylus, fragment 443, translated by ProfMüller, , “Science of Language,” ii. 441Google Scholar: The Taittirîya Brâhmaṇa, iii. 12, 3, 1Google Scholar, says that the self-existent Brahma is “son, father and mother.”

^{page 343 note 1} See p. 58 of former paper, and Sanskrit Texts, iv. 4 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 2} This image is repeated in R.V. x. 72, 2Google Scholar; and may have been borrowed from R.V. iv. 2, 17.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 1} Brahmanaspati is elsewhere (R. V. ii. 26, 3Google Scholar) styled “the father of the gods,” while Brhaspati (a kindred, if not identical, deity) is called “ our father” (R. V. vi. 73, 1Google Scholar). And yet Brahmanaspati is himself said in R. V. ii. 23, 17Google Scholar, to have been generated by Tvashṭṛ superior to all creatures. On the character of this god the reader may consult some ingenious remarks by Professor Roth in the first volume of the Journal of the German Oriental Society, pp. 72 ff.,Google Scholar and Professor Wilson's notes to his translation of the Rig Veda, vol. i. pp. 41 and 43,Google Scholar and vol. ii. pp. 262 and 263. I may take an opportunity to give an account of this deity, as well as of several others, whom I have not yet handled, in a future paper.

^{page 344 note 2} See above, p. 343.

^{page 344 note 3} This hymn has been already translated by Mr. Colebrooke and Professor Müller, as well as in Sanskrit Texts, iv. 4.Google Scholar I have now endeavoured to improve my own version, and otherwise to illustrate the sense of the hymn. I have attempted the following metrical rendering of its contents:—

“Then there was neither Aught nor Nought, no air nor sky beyond.

What covered all ? Where rested all ? In watery gulf profound ?

Nor death was there, nor deathlessness, nor change of night and day.

That One breathed calmly, self-sustained; nought else beyond It lay.

Gloom hid in gloom existed first—one sea, eluding view.

That One, a void in chaos wrapt, by inward fervour grew.

Within It first arose desire, the primal germ of mind,

Which nothing with existence links, as sages searching find.

Was it beneath ? was it above ? Can any sage proclaim ?

There fecundating powers were found, and mighty forces strove,

A self-supporting mass beneath, and energy above.

Who knows, who ever told, from whence this vast creation rose ?

No gods had then been born,—who then can e'er the truth disclose ?

Whence sprang this world, and whether framed by hand divine or no,—

It's lord in heaven alone can tell, if even he can show.”

^{page 345 note 1} Compare R. V. i. 164, 6,Google Scholar “What was that One in the form of the unborn which supported these six worlds ?”

^{page 345 note 2} In the M. Bh. Ṣántip. 6812 ff. it is said that from the æther was produced water, “ like another darkness in darkness;” and from the foam of the water was produced the wind.

^{page 345 note 3} Professor Aufrecht has suggested to me that the word raṣmi may have here the sense of thread, or cord, and not of ray.

^{page 345 note 4} Does this receive any illustration from R. V. i. 159, 2Google Scholar (quoted in the former paper on Vedic Mythology, p. 54), which speaks of the “thought (manas) of the father” (Dyaus), and of the “mighty independent power (mahi svatavas) of the mother” (Earth) ?

^{page 346 note 1} These Vedántic terms name and form occur (as observed in my paper on Yama) in the Atharva Veda, x. 2, 12Google Scholar: “Who placed in him (Purusha) name, magnitude, and form ?” and in xi. 7, 1: “ In the remains of the sacrifice (uchhishṭa) name and form, in the remains of the sacrifice the world, is comprehended.” See Ṣ. P. Br. xi. 2, 3, 1,Google Scholar to be quoted below.

^{page 347 note 1} Another verse of the A. V. xvii. 1, 19Google Scholar, says: “Entity is founded (pratishṭhitam) on nonentity; what has become (bhûta) is founded on entity. What has become is based (âhitam) on what is to be, and what is to be is founded on what has become.”

^{page 347 note 2} This phrase is also applied to Agni in R. V. x. 5, 7,Google Scholar where it is said that that god, being “a thing both asat, non-existent (i.e. unmanifested), and sat, existent (i.e. in a latent state, or in essence), in the highest heaven, in the creation of Daksha, and in the womb of Aditi (comp. R. V. x. 72, 4 fGoogle Scholar.), became in a former age the first-born of our ceremonial, and is both a bull and a cow.” In A. V. xi. 7, 3,Google Scholar it is said that the uchhish⹭ha (remains of the sacrifice) is both san and asan (masculine)

^{page 347 note 3} See English trans, p. 101; which I have not followed.

^{page 348 note 1} Roth's interpretation is supported by a text in the A.V. x. 7, 38Google Scholar (see further on) as well as by numerous passages in the Bráhmaṇas. Thus in Ṣ. P. Br. xi. 5, 8, 1Google Scholar (quoted in Sanskrit Texts, iii. 3Google Scholar), Prajâpati, who is described as being the universe, is said to have desired (akûmayata) to propagate himself, and to have striven and practised rigorous abstraction (tapa, ’tapyata). And in the same Brâhmaṇa, xiii. 7,1, 1Google Scholar (cited in Sansk. Texts, iv. 25Google Scholar), the self-existent Brahma himself is similarly related to have practised tapas, and when he found that that did not confer infinity, to have offered himself in sacrifice. The gods are also said to have attained heaven and their divine character by tapas (see my former paper on Vedic Mythology, p. 63;Google Scholar and Sansk. Texts, iv. pp. 20, 21,24, and 288Google Scholar). Compare also the Taittirîya Upanishad, ii. 6,Google Scholar where it is said: “He (the supreme Soul) desired, ‘Let me be multiplied, and produced.’ He performed tapas, and having done so, he created all this.” In his commentary on this passage, Sankara explains that knowledge is called tapas; and that the phrase means “He reflected upon the construction, etc., of the world which was being created.” It is true that all these passages from the Brâhmaṇas are of a later date than the hymn, but the R. V. itself x. 167, 1,Google Scholar says that Indra gained heaven by tapas, where the word can only mean rigorous abstraction.

This view of the word is also supported by Taitt. Br. iii. 12, 3, 1:Google Scholar “Let us worship with an oblation that first-born god, by whom this entire universe which exists is surrounded (paribhûtam)—the self-existent Brahma, which is the highest tapas. He is son, father, mother. Tapas was produced as the first object of devotion.”

In the Mahâbhârata, Ṣâantiparva, 10836, Prajâpati is said to have created living beings by tapas, after having entered on religious observances, or austerities (vratûni).

Tapas is also mentioned as the source from which creatures were produced, A.V. xiii. 1, 10.Google Scholar

Compare Bhâgavata Purâna ii. 9, 6, 7, 19, 23,Google Scholar and iii. 10, 4 ff.

Tapas is connected with an oblation of boiled milk in a passage of the A. V. iv. 11, 6:Google Scholar “May we, renowned, attain to the world of righteousness by that ceremony of offering boiled milk, by tapas, whereby the gods ascended to heaven, the centre of immortality, having left behind their body.” And xi. 5, 5, connects tapas with heat: “ The Brahmachârin, born before Brahma, dwelling (or clothed) in heat, arose through tapas.”

In A. V. vii. 61,Google Scholartapas is connected with Agni.

In A. V. xvii. 1, 24,Google Scholartapas means the heat of the sun.

Tapas is mentioned along with karman in A. V. xi. 8, 2,Google Scholar and is said to have been produced from it (ibid. v. 6)

^{page 349 note 1} The commentator on the Taittirîya Brâthmaṇa, ii. 8, 9, 5Google Scholar (p. 928 of Calcutta edition, in Bibl. Ind.) says : “The Vâjasaneyins record that desire is the cause of all action, and say; ‘this Purusha is himself actuated by desire’ (Bṛhadâr. Up. p. 854). And Vyâsa too declares in his smṛiti, ‘That which binds this world is desire; it has no other bond.’ The same thing, too, is seen within our own observation; for it is only after a man has first desired something that he strives after it, and so experiences pleasure or pain.” In numerous passages of the Brâhmaṇas and Upanishads (as in those quoted in the last note), we are told that the first step in the creation was that Prajâpati or Brahma desired (akûmayata).

In his remarks on the passage of the Taitt. Upanishad, quoted in the last note, Sâyaṇa considers it necessary to explain; that the supreme Soul is not subject to the dominion of desire, as if, like men, he had any wish unfulfilled, or were subject to the influence of any desirable objects external to himself, or were dependent on other things as instruments of attaining any such external objects; but on the contrary, is independent of all other things, and himself, with a view to the interests of living beings, originated his desires which possess the characteristics of truth and knowledge (or true knowledge), and from being a part of himself, are perfectly pure. I shall below treat further of Kâma, as a deity, and of hia correspondence with the Greek ’Eϑως, as one of the first principles of creation.

^{page 351 note 1} Similar perplexity is elsewhere expressed on other subjects by the authors of the hymns. See Sanskrit Texts, iii. 177.Google Scholar

^{page 353 note 1} Translations of this hymn (which is also given with slight variations in Vâj. S. 31, 1–16, and A. V. 19, 6, and 7, 5, 4) will be found in MrColebrooke's, Misc. Ess. i. 167Google Scholar (see also the note in p. 309 of the same volume); as also in my Sanskrit Texts, i. 6 ff.;Google Scholar and (into French) in the Preface to Burnouf's, Bhâgavata Purâṇa, vol. i. pp. cxxxi. ff.Google Scholar (where see the notes). I have now endeavoured (in some places with the aid of Professor Aufrecht) to improve the translation I formerly gave, and to supply some further illustrations of the ideas in the hymn. I have passed over several obscurities on which I have been unable to throw any light. The first two verses are given in the Ṣvetâṣvatara Upanishad, iii. 14, 15,Google Scholar where the commentary may he consulted.

^{page 353 note 2} The sense of the last clause is obscure. It may also mean, according to the commentators on the Vâj. S. and the Ṣvetâṣv. Upan. “(he is also the lord of) that which grows by food.” According to the paraphrase in the Bhâgavata Purâṇa (see below), it means, “seeing he has transcended mortal nutriment.” The parallel passage of the A. V. (19, 6, 4) reads, “he is also the lord of immortality, since he became united with another (yad anyenâbhavat saha).

^{page 354 note 1} Compare A. V. x. 8, 7 and 13:Google Scholar “7. With the half he produced the whole world; but what became of that which was the [other] half of him? 13. Prajâpati moves within the womb; though unseen, he is born in many forms. With the half he produced the whole world; but the [other] half of him, what sign is there of it ?” Compare also A. V. x. 7, 8, 9,Google Scholar which will be found translated further on.

^{page 354 note 2} The commentator on the Vâj. San. (where, as I have said, this hymn is also found) explains this reciprocal generation of Virâj from Purusha, and again of Purusha from Virâj, by saying, in conformity with Vedantic principles, that Virâj in the form of the mundane egg sprang from Âdi-Purusha (primeval Purusha), who then entered into this egg, which he animates as its vital soul or divine principle. According to Manu, i. 8–11, the supreme Deity first created the waters, in which he placed an egg, from which again he himself was born as Brahmâ, also called Nârâyaṇa. This male (Purusha), created by the eternal, imperceptible, first Cause, is, as v. 11 repeats, called Brahmâ. Bralimâ by his own thought split the egg (v. 12). After various other details regarding the creation, the writer goes on to say (v. 32) that Brahmâ divided his own body into two halves, of which one became a male (Purusha) and the other a female, in whom he produced Virâj. This male (Purusha) Virâj again creates Manu himself (v. 33). We here see that the word male or Purusha is applied by Manu to three beings—viz., first, to Brahmâ (v. 11); second, to the male formed by Brahmâ from the half of his own body (v. 32); and thirdly, to Virâj, whom Brahmâ or his male half, produced from the female who was made out of the other half of his body (see also Wilson's, Vishṇu Puraṇa, p. 105Google Scholar, note, in Dr. Hall's edition).

Another explanation of the verse is, however, to be obtained by comparing the similar passage in R. V. x. 72, 4:Google Scholar “Daksha sprang from Aditi, and Aditi from Daksha,” which I have quoted in my former paper (pp. 72 f.), together with the observation of Yâska (Nirukta, xi. 23Google Scholar), that this startling declaration may be explicable on the ground that these two deities had the same origin, or, in conformity with a characteristic of their divine nature, may have been produced from each other, and have derived their substance from each other. (See Nirukta, , vii. 4,Google Scholar quoted in Sansk. Texts, iv. 134,Google Scholar where the author repeats the same idea regarding the nature of the gods). Compare A. V. xiii. 4, 29 ff.,Google Scholar where Indra is said to be produced from a great many different gods, and they reciprocally from him.

The Ṣ. P. Br. (xiii. 6, 1, 2Google Scholar) understands Virâj in the passage before us to signify not any male power, but the metre of that name: “The Virâj has forty syllables. Hence he (Purusha) obtains the Virâj, according to the text, ‘From him sprang Virâj and from Virâj Purusha.’ This is that Virâj. From this Virâj, therefore, it is that he begets Purusha the sacrifice.”

Virâj occurs again in the Rig Veda, ix. 96, 18Google Scholar, and x. 130, 5, as feminine and as the name of a metre. It is also, found in x. 159, 3, and x. 166, 1, as well as in i. 188, 5, where it is an adjective. In the A. V. it is of frequent occurrence, and sometimes is an epithet, and sometimes denotes the metre of that name. Thus in ix. 2, 5 (comp. Vâj. Sanh. 17, 3, and S. P. Br. ix. 2, 1, 19Google Scholar) it is said, “That daughter of thine, 0 Kâma, is called the Cow, she whom sages denominate Vâeh Virâj” (comp. R.V. viii. 90, 16,Google Scholar “The goddess Vâch … the cow, who has come from the gods”). Again in viii. 9,1… “The two calves of Virâj rose out of the water. 2. … The desire-bestowing calf of Virâj.” It is shortly afterwards (v. 7) strangely said that Virâj, though spoken of in the feminine gender, is the father of brahman, whether that mean the deity or devotion. “They say that Virâj is the father of devotion. Bring her to us thy friends in as many forms (as thou canst). 8. She whom, when she advances, sacrifices follow, and stand still when she stands; she, by whose will and energy the adorable being moves, is Virâj in the highest heaven. 9. Without breath, she moves by the breath of breathing females. Virâj follows after Svarâj,” etc. The calf of Virâj is mentioned again in xiii. 1, 33. In viii. 10, 1, it is said of her: “Virâj was formerly all this [universe]. Every king was afraid of her when she was born, lest she herself should become this. 2. She ascended. She entered the Gârhapatya fire. He who knows this becomes master of the house,” etc. And in ix. 10, 24, we read: “Virâj is Vach, is the earth, and the air, is Prajâpati, is Death, the ruler of the Sâdhyas,” etc. In reading these passages we should bear in mind the great power attributed by the Vedic writers to hymns and metres. See Weber's, Ind. Stud. viii. 8–12;Google Scholar and Sanskrit Texts, iii. 172 ff.Google Scholar On the virtues of the Virâj in particular, see Weber, as above, pp. 56 ff. In the following texts the word may be a masculine name or an epithet: A.V. xi. 5,16.Google Scholar “The âchârya is a brahmachârin; the brahmachârin is Prajâpati. Prajâpati shines (vi rujati). He became the resplendent, powerful Indra.” So also in iv. 11, 7; xiii. 3, 5; xi. 5, 7; and viii. 5, 10, where Virâj precedes or follows the words Prajâpati and Parameshṭhin. In xi. 4, 12, Virâj is identified with Prâṇa. In the Bṛhad Âr. Up. Virâj is called the wife of Purusha. (See p. 217 of Dr. Röer's translation).

^{page 355 note 1} In the Bhâgavata Purâṇa, ii. 6, 15ffGoogle Scholar. the preceding verses of our hymn are paraphrased as follows: “Purusha himself is all this which has been, shall be, and is. By him this universe is enveloped, and yet he occupies but a span. That Prâna [explained by the commentator as the sun], while kindling his own sphere, kindles also that which is without it. So too Purusha, while kindling Virâj, kindles whatever is within and without him. He is the lord of immortality and security, since he has transcended mortal nutriment. Hence, O Brahman, this greatness of Purusha is unsurpassable. The wise know all things to exist in the feet [or quarters] of Purusha, who has the worlds for feet [or quarters]: immortality, blessedness, and security, abide in the heads of the three-headed. Three quarters, viz., the abodes of ascetics, are beyond the three worlds; while the remaining quarter, the abode of householders who have not adopted a life of celibacy, is within them. Purusha has traversed both the two separate paths, that of enjoyment and abstinence, that is, of ignorance and knowledge; for he is the receptacle of both. From him was produced an egg, consisting of the elements, and senses, and three qualities. Purusha penetrated through its entire substance, as the sun warms with his rays.”

There is a good deal about Purusha in the Bṛhad Âraṇyaka Upanishad. See pp. 217, 220–228, 233, 250, 252, 267, of Dr. Roer's Eng. transl.

^{page 356 note 1} The rendering in these passages depends on the exact sense assigned to the word yaj. See Sanskrit Texts, iv. 7–9.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 2} Ibid., p. 7. In the S. P. Br. xi. 1, 8, 2,Google Scholar it is said that “Prajâpati gave himself to the gods, and became their sacrifice. For sacrifice is the food of the gods. He then created sacrifice as his own image (or counterpart). Hence they say that ‘Prajâpati is sacrifice;’ for he created it as his own image.” In the M. Bh. Ṣântip. 9616, also, it is said that Prajâpati formed the sacrificial victims, and sacrifice itself, and with it worshipped the gods. The S. P. Brâhmana says, elsewhere, xiv. 3, 2, 1, “This which is sacrifice is the soul of all bodies and of all gods.”

^{page 357 note 1} The word svayambhû does not, however, always signify self-existence in the absolute sense. Thus Kaṣyapa is in A.V. xix. 53, 10Google Scholar, called svayambhû, and is yet said to have sprung from Kâla (time).

^{page 357 note 2} See Sanskrit Texts, iv. p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 3} Dr. Haug, when treating of the importance attached to sacrifice by the Brahmans, remarks (Pref. to Ait. Br. p. 73): “The creation of the world itself was even regarded as the fruit of a sacrifice performed by the Supreme Being.” If the learned author here refers to the Purusha Sûkta it would have been more exact to say that the creation was regarded as the fruit of an immolation of the Supreme Being. But his remark may be justified by the other passages I have cited.

^{page 358 note 1} Comp. A. V. vii. 53, 7:Google Scholar “Ascending from the darkness to the highest heaven, we have reached the sun, a god among the gods, the uppermost light.”

^{page 358 note 2} The following verse given in the Nirukta ii. 3,Google Scholar is from the Ṣvetâṣvatara Upanishad, iii. 9:Google Scholar “This entire universe is filled by that Purusha to whom there is nothing superior, from whom there is nothing different, than whom no one ia more minute or more vast, and who alone, fixed like a tree, abides in the sky.”

^{page 359 note 1} Here, as above noticed, we have the nâma and rûpa of the Vedantists.

^{page 360 note 1} One line of A. V. x. 8, 43,Google Scholar is identical with one line of this verse, though the other line is different. The whole runs thus: “The knowers of brahma know that living ohject of adoration which resides in the lotus with nine gates, invested with the three qualities” (tribhir guṇebhir ûvṛtam). Roth, s.v. guṇa, translates the last three words by “triply enveloped,” and refers in support of this sense to vv. 29 and 32 of the hymn before us, and to Chhândogya Upanishad, viii. 1, 1.Google Scholar It is possible, however, that there may be here a first reference to the three guṇas afterwards so celebrated in Indian philosophical speculation.

^{page 362 note 1} See DrHaug's, Essay on the sacred language of the Parsees, p. 233.Google Scholar

^{page 362 note 1} See vv. 20, 33, and 37 of A. V. x. 8,Google Scholar to be quoted below.

^{page 363 note 1} I am indebted to Professor Aufrecht for an explanation of this word, and an indication of some passages in which it is mentioned. In R. V. i. 22, 3,Google Scholar and i. 157, 4, the Aṣvins are said to have a honied whip, kaṣâ madhumatî, with which they are besought to sprinkle the worshippers, or their sacrifice. The Maruts are also said in R. V. i. 37, 3,Google Scholar and i. 168, 4, to have whips, though they are not said to be honied. In the Nighaṇṭu, however, the sense of speech is ascribed to Kaṣû; and a mystical signification is also assigned to the word madhu, honey, which Dadhyanch is said, R. V. i. 116, 12,Google Scholar and i. 117, 22, to have made known to the Aṣvins. This is explained by Sâyaṇa on these two passages as meaning that he gave them a Brâhmana revealing the Madhuvidyâ; and Mahîdhara on Vâj. S. 7, 11, understands the kaṣû madhumatî as referring to this mystic lore. This Madhukaṣâ is celebrated at considerable length in A. V. ix. 1,Google Scholar where it is said that she “sprang from the sky, the earth, the air, the sea, fire, and wind,” and that “all creatures, worshipping her who dwells in immortality, rejoice in their hearts.” In vv. 3, 10, she is said to be the “brilliant granddaughter of the Maruts,” and in v. 4, to be the “mother of the Âdityas, the daughter of the Vasus, the life of creatures, and the centre of immortality.”

^{page 363 note 2} Compare A. V. ix. 6, 1:Google Scholar “He who clearly knows Brahma, of whom the materials of sacrifice are the joints, the Rik-verses are the backbone, the Sâma-verses the hairs, the Yajus is said to be the heart, and the oblation the covering.”

^{page 363 note 3} The sense of this verse is obscure, and it does not seem to be very closely connected either with what precedes or with what follows. I have adopted partly the rendering suggested by Professor Aufrecht.

^{page 364 note 1} See above, p. 344.

^{page 364 note 2} The meaning of this, as suggested by Professor Aufrecht, is that by invoking Indra, the worshipper really worships Skambha.

^{page 364 note 3} Pramâ. Compare, however, R. V. x. 130, 3Google Scholar.

^{page 364 note 4} Such is the sense according to Roth, s.v. kevala.

^{page 364 note 5} Compare A. V. x. 8, 15Google Scholar … “the great object of adoration in the midst of the world: to him the rulers of realms bring tribute.”

^{page 365 note 1} In the R. V. x. 95, 4, 5Google Scholar (compare Nirukta iii. 21Google Scholar), and Ṣ. P. Br. xi. 5, 1, 1Google Scholar, the word vaitasa has the sense of membrum virile. Are we to understand the word vetasa (reed) in the same sense here, as denoting a Linga?

^{page 366 note 1} See note in p. 22.

^{page 368 note 1} Here there is an allusion to the other sense of brahma as the Brahman caste.

^{page 368 note 2} “For,” says the commentatator, “in the Brahman's body the supreme Brahma is manifested.”

^{page 369 note 3} The first half of this verse, as we have seen, is also found in the A. V. x. 8, 13,Google Scholar with the different reading of adṛiṣyamânaḥ, “not being seen,” for ajûyamûnaḥ, “not being born.” The second line runs thus in the A. V.: “With the half he produced the whole world. But what trace is there of his [other] half?”

^{page 369 note 2} Ṣ. P. Br. vii. 5, 2, 6.Google ScholarPrajûpati was at first this [universe.] Being alone he desired, ‘May I create food, and become reproduced.’ He fashioned animals from his breath, man (purusha) from his soul (manas), the horse from his eye, the cow from his breath, the sheep from his ear, the goat from his voice. Inasmuch as he created these (animals) from his breath, they say that ‘the breaths are the animals.’ The soul (manas) is the first of the breaths; and since he fashioned man from his soul, they say that ‘man is the first and strongest of the animals.’ The soul is all the breaths, for they are all supported in it: since then he fashioned man from the soul, they say, ‘man is all the animals,’ for they are all his.”

^{page 372 note 1} See verse 12, of the hymn to Purusha, A. V. x. 2, above.

^{page 373 note 1} Are these the ten Maharshis mentioned hy Manu i. 34 f.? In A. V. xi. 1, 1, 3,Google Scholar mention is made of the seven Rishis, the makers of all things (bhûta-kṛtaḥ). See also A. V. xii. 1, 39.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 1} See Âṣvalâyana's Gṛhya Sûtras, ed. Stenzler, , pp. 12 ff.,Google Scholar where the initiation of the Brahmachârin, or religious student, is described. Part of the ceremony is that he throws fuel (samidh) on the fire, which he invokes with texts. This ritual is probably alluded to in the hymn before us.

The Brahmachârin is also mentioned in R. V. x. 109, 5,Google Scholar where he is said to be one member of the gods (sa devânâm bhavati ekam angam).

^{page 375 note 2} The words brahma jyeshṭham appear here to denote divine knowledge. As employed in A. V. x. 7, 32ff.,Google Scholar and x. 8, 1, they appear to designate a personal being. See above.

^{page 376 note 1} Compare A. V. x. 7, 38,Google Scholar quoted above.

^{page 377 note 1} In A. V. iii. 29, 7,Google Scholar some light is thrown upon the process by which Kâma came to be regarded aṣ a deity. We there read: “Who hath given this, and to whom? Kâma has given it to Kâma (i.e. the inspirer, or fulfiller, of desire, has given it to desire). Kâma is the giver (i.e. the inspirer, or fulfiller, of desire); Kâma is the receiver. Kâma has entered into the ocean. Through Kâma I receive thee, Kâma, this is thine.” The allusion here made to Kâma entering the ocean recalls the fact that Agni is often said to be produced from or exist in the waters (R. V. i. 23, 23;Google Scholar x. 2, 7; x. 51, 3; x. 91, 6; A. V. i. 33, 1).Google Scholar And in A.V. iii. 21, 4,Google Scholar Kâma is distinctly identified with Agni: “The god (Agni), who is omnivorous, whom they call Kâma, whom they call the giver and the receiver, who is wise, strong, pre-eminent, unconquerable,” etc. In some parts of the hymn before us (A. V. ix. 2Google Scholar) the same identification of Kâma with Agni appears to be made. Thus in v. 1, Kâma, and in v. 8, Kâma and other gods, are said to be worshipped with ghṛta (butter), an oblation especially appropriate to Agni. In vv. 4 and 9, Agni is called upon to burn the dwellings of the worshipper's enemies, whom Kâma had just been besought to destroy. Again, in v. 25, the auspicious bodies, or manifestations (tanvaḥ) of Kâma are referred to just as those of Agni are in other hymns, (as R. V. x. 16, 4;Google ScholarA. V. xviii. 4, 10;Google Scholar comp. Vâj. S. xvi. 2).Google Scholar On the other hand, however, Agni is specified separately from Kâma in v. 6; and in v. 24, Kâma is represented as superior to Agni, as well as to Vâta, Sûrya, and Chandramas (the moon). In v. 9, Indra and Agni are mentioned along with Kâma, though the verb with which these gods are connected is in the dual. But although in these verses Agni and Kâma are distinguished from each other, Kâma may be there looked upon as a superior form of the other deity.

^{page 377 note 2} In the Taitt. Br. ii. 8, 8, 8,Google Scholar Ṣraddhâ, or faith, is said to be the mother of Kâma. This, however, the commentator explains as signifying merely that she is the means of obtaining all desired rewards, since no action takes place unless men have faith.

^{page 378 note 1} In A. V. viii. 5, 3,Google Scholar mention is made of a jewel or amulet, by which Indra slew Vṛttra, overcame the Asuras, and conquered heaven and earth, and the four regions.” And in A. V. viii. 8, 5ff.Google Scholar we are told of another instrument of offence belonging to Indra, in addition to the thunderbolt, arrows, and hook, described in the R. V. (see my former paper, p. 92), viz., a net: 5. ”The air was his net; and the great regions the rods for extending the net. Enclosing within it the host of the Dasyus, Ṣakra overwhelmed it. 7. Great is the net of thee who art great, O heroic Indra! . . within it enclosing them, Ṣakra slew a hundred, a thousand, ten. thousand, a hundred millions of Dasyus, with his army.”

^{page 379 note 1} This hymn is translated by Professor Weber in his Iadische Studier, v. 224 ff., from whose version I have derived assistance.

^{page 380 note 1} A great deal is said about the potency of Kâa, or Time, in the Sânti-parva of the Mahâbhârata, vv. 8106, 8112, 8125 ff., 8139–8144, 8758, 9877 f., 10060.

^{page 380 note 2} The word which I have rendered “self-born” is svayambhûḥ. This term must in certain cases be rendered by “self-existent,” as in Manu, i. 6–11,Google Scholar where it is applied to the undeveloped primeval Deity, the creator of Brahmâ. In other places, however, Brahmâ himself, the derived creator, is called svayambhûḥ, as in M. Bh. Ṣântip. v. 7569, though he had previously (in v. 7530) been declared to have been born in a lotus sprung from the navel of Sankarshaṇa, the first-born offspring (v. 7527) of Vishṇu. The same epithet is applied to Brahmâ in the Bhâg. Pur. iii. 8, 15.Google Scholar But in fact, Svayambhû is well known to be one of the synonymes of Brahmâ, though that god is nowhere represented as an underived, self-existent being. This word must therefore be regarded as not necessarily meaning anything more than one who comes into existence in an extraordinary and supernatural manner.

^{page 381 note 1} The M. Bh. however, Anuṣâsava-parva, vv. 51–56, makes Mṛtyu, or death, declare that all natures, all creatures, the world itself, all actions, cessations and changes, derive their essential character from Time, while the gods themselves, including Vishṇu, are created and destroyed by the same power (kûla).

^{page 381 note 2} “Κρóνος was also,” adds ProfWilson, “one of the first generated agents in creation, according to the Orphic theogony.”Google Scholar