the Brahman itself went up to the sphere beyond.  Having gone up to the sphere beyond, it considered, ’How can I descend again into these worlds?’ It then descended again by means of these two, Form and Name.  Whatever has a name, that is name; and that again which has no name and which one knows by its form, ‘this is (of a certain) form,’ that is form:  as far as there are Form and Name so far, indeed, extends this (universe).  These indeed are the two great forces of Brahman; and, verily, he who knows these two great forces of Brahman becomes himself a great force [Footnote ref 3].  In another place Brahman is said to be the ultimate thing in the Universe and is identified with Prajapati, Puru@sa and Pra@na

_______________________________________________________

___________

[Footnote 1:  See The Rigveda, by Kaegi, p. 89, and also Muir’s Sanskrit Texts, vol.  IV. pp. 5-11.]

[Footnote 2:  Kaegi’s translation.]

[Footnote 3:  See Eggeling’s translation of S’atapatha Brahmana S.B.E. vol.  XLIV. pp. 27, 28.]

21

(the vital air [Footnote ref 1]).  In another place Brahman is described as being the Svayambhu (self-born) performing austerities, who offered his own self in the creatures and the creatures in his own self, and thus compassed supremacy, sovereignty and lordship over all creatures [Footnote ref 2].  The conception of the supreme man (Puru@sa) in the @Rg-Veda also supposes that the supreme man pervades the world with only a fourth part of Himself, whereas the remaining three parts transcend to a region beyond.  He is at once the present, past and future [Footnote ref 3].

Sacrifice; the First Rudiments of the Law of Karma.

It will however be wrong to suppose that these monotheistic tendencies were gradually supplanting the polytheistic sacrifices.  On the other hand, the complications of ritualism were gradually growing in their elaborate details.  The direct result of this growth contributed however to relegate the gods to a relatively unimportant position, and to raise the dignity of the magical characteristics of the sacrifice as an institution which could give the desired fruits of themselves.  The offerings at a sacrifice were not dictated by a devotion with which we are familiar under Christian or Vai@s@nava influence.  The sacrifice taken as a whole is conceived as Haug notes “to be a kind of machinery in which every piece must tally with the other,” the slightest discrepancy in the performance of even a minute ritualistic detail, say in the pouring of the melted butter on the fire, or the proper placing of utensils employed in the sacrifice, or even the misplacing of a mere straw contrary to the injunctions was sufficient to spoil the whole sacrifice with whatsoever earnestness it might be performed.  Even if a word was mispronounced the most dreadful results might follow.  Thus when Tva@s@t@r performed a sacrifice for the production