the highest, the only god, before whom all others disappear, there being in this, however, no offence or depreciation of any other god [Footnote ref 1].”  “Against this theory it has been urged,” as Macdonell rightly says in his Vedic Mythology [Footnote ref 2], “that Vedic deities are not represented as ‘independent of all the rest,’ since no religion brings its gods into more frequent and varied juxtaposition and combination, and that even the mightiest gods of the Veda are made dependent on others.  Thus Varu@na and Surya are subordinate to Indra (I. 101), Varu@na and the As’vins submit to the power of Vi@s@nu (I. 156)....Even when a god is spoken of as unique or chief (eka), as is natural enough in laudations, such statements lose their temporarily monotheistic force, through the modifications or corrections supplied by the context or even by the same verse [Footnote Ref 3].  “Henotheism is therefore an appearance,” says Macdonell, “rather than a reality, an appearance produced by the indefiniteness due to undeveloped anthropomorphism, by the lack of any Vedic god occupying the position of a Zeus as the constant head of the pantheon, by the natural tendency of the priest or singer in extolling a particular god to exaggerate his greatness and to ignore other gods, and by the

_______________________________________________________

_____________

[Footnote 1:  The Rigveda, by Kaegi, p. 27.]

[Footnote 2:  See Ibid. p. 33.  See also Arrowsmith’s note on it for other references to Henotheism.]

[Footnote 3:  Macdonell’s Vedic Mythology, pp. 16, 17.]

19

growing belief in the unity of the gods (cf. the refrain of 3, 35) each of whom might be regarded as a type of the divine [Footnote ref 1].”  But whether we call it Henotheism or the mere temporary exaggeration of the powers of the deity in question, it is evident that this stage can neither be properly called polytheistic nor monotheistic, but one which had a tendency towards them both, although it was not sufficiently developed to be identified with either of them.  The tendency towards extreme exaggeration could be called a monotheistic bias in germ, whereas the correlation of different deities as independent of one another and yet existing side by side was a tendency towards polytheism.

Growth of a Monotheistic tendency; Prajapati, Vis’vakarma.

This tendency towards extolling a god as the greatest and highest gradually brought forth the conception of a supreme Lord of all beings (Prajapati), not by a process of conscious generalization but as a necessary stage of development of the mind, able to imagine a deity as the repository of the highest moral and physical power, though its direct manifestation cannot be perceived.  Thus the epithet Prajapati or the Lord of beings, which was originally an epithet for other deities, came to be recognized as a separate deity, the highest and the greatest.  Thus it is said in R.V.x. 121 [Footnote Ref 2]: