Prajapati's relations with Brahman, Brhaspati and Brahma - DWC

variant in TB. 2, 6, 2 d etc. it appears that it is the power inherent in the
manifestation of Bráhman which enabled the god to drink the draught in
the proper way: rásam bráhmavä vyapibat k~atrám "nobility drank up the
sap by means of Bráhman (i.e. of the 'holy power' manifesting itself in the
sacred word)". .
In a poem which deals with the constitution of man, A VS. 11, 8, Bráhman
is st. 30 (AVP. 16, 88, 1) said to have entered the body while Prajäpati is
over (adhi) it. The two, Bráhman and Prajäpati, are clearly different and
are obviously considered to have different functions, Bráhman as a sort
of 'soul' or as man's psychical apparatus (cf. st. 32) as a whoie, and Prajäpati
probably as a divine attendant, supervisor, protector or patron
saint. Anyhow, both of them are distinct from the sun and the wind which,
existing in material form, are said (st. 31) to share respectively man's eye
and breath, although their relation to the gods who according to st. 29
entered man is at first sight less clear; st. 30 makes also mention of the
waters, deities and viräj18 which is coupled with Brahman. It is true that
the terms devä~ and devatä~ are rat her vague, but in st. 32 the person
who knows man (puru~a) is expected to think "this (sc. puru~a) is Bráhman",
because all deities (devatä~) are seated in him (representing or
presiding over the psychical and physical functions )". However, Prajäpati's
special function is evident 19 •
In AVS. 10, 10, 30; 33 (AVP. 16, 109, 10; 110, 3) the cow that is eulogized
as the 'Urwesen' is on the one hand 'identified' with Vililt;lU and Prajäpati
and on the other hand associated with - probably even believed to
contain - I.tta (UniversalOrder), Bráhman, and tap as (productive heat).
The following is a clear case of transference of a creative activity of the
personal god to the impersonal first principle. Whereas, e. g. , in SB. 6,
1, 1, 8 (the) Purulila Prajäpati desired to reproduce himself and with that
end in view practised tapas and in ChU. 6, 2, 3 this desire and this activity
are ascribed to Being (sat) which, in the beginning , existed alone,
the author of TU. 2, 6 expresses with almost the same words the opinion
that it was Bráhman, which really exists (asli) , that wished to procreate
itself and to that end practised tap as . But because it is represented as
desiring to multiply itself and so on it is referred to by sa~, not by the
neuter pronoun tad.
Af ter stating, in the section on the human sacrifice SB. 13, 6, 2, 5 ff. ,
that 158 victims are to be tied to 11 stakes, the author adds that (7) "last
of all (uttamän) he takes hold of 8 victims (in order to immolate them, älabhate)20
- the gäyatrï (metre) consists of 8 syllabies, and the gäyatrï is
Bráhman: he thus makes Bráhman the ultimate (uttamam) of this All (the
universe) ... "and that (8) these (8) are sacred to Prajäpati (cf. VS. 30,
22); Prajäpati, one should know, is Bráhman, for Prajäpati is of the nature
of Bráhman (brähmï); therefore they are sacred to Prajäpati". Here
Eggeling observed that "Prajäpati is, as it were, the personification, or
phenomenal representative (of Bráhman)". At SB. 8, 5, 3, 7 the gäyatrï
is said to be (represent) Brahman, at 5, 4, 1, 3 (VS. 10, 10) the gäyatrï
is co-ordinated with Bráhman, the first social order, and at VS. 9, 32
18 Whose activities and sovereignty have a wide scope in all directions .
19 Deussen's interpretation, Allg. Gesch. der Phil. I, 1, p. 271 "Prajäpati wird
durch Identifikation mit Brahman wegerklärt" is not acceptable.
20 Cf. Eggeling, Sat. Br. , V, p. 407 f. .
42