Selfhood in Context - Some Indian Solutions

SELFHOOD IN CONTEXT: SOME INDIAN SOLUTIONS Prakash Desai and Alfred Collins

"Now I am a/f aJ011e - 1111 a/011e, ·ht 1hougli1, '/11 all India is'"' one so a/011• as /!If I die roday who shall firing news-ana t(I Krllom?• '~Vho is Ki111 - Ki111 - Kini?'

Rudyard Kipli ng ABSTRACT

111 'Sdfhood 011d co111ext· some Indian solutions,' A/frtd Colli11s and Prakash Desai examine the Jndia11 conceptJ ofatman tmd ahamkara, 1ra11..luted as 'trcm.Jct11den1self'1111d 'ego self.' They 1r11ce the evol11· tio11 oftheco11ceptofself i11 the Vedas and Upanisl111ds, tmdfocu.t 011 rlrc image of rlit Cosmrc Man, Prajapati. The chaptu attempts to bring together psycho-analytic tmd object relarion.t t/1eorics abm1t the self with the Indian co11ceptio11s. The awhors also point 0111 thfll the Indian fom1ulatio1is of Sttlf exist in contemporary lift, not just in tire ancient 1exts.

Surely no culture has bcco more preoccupied with the experiences and concepts of a 'self' than India . At least since around IOOQ OC (during the earliest or Vedic period oflndian culture) no subject has been more central to Indian thought. Solutions to India's self· questions hnve been extremely diverse, ranging from the onhodox Hindu attempts to Msert tbe absoluteness and indestructibilit~ of ao 261

J''rakas/1

Desai and Alfn!d Collit1s

inner self (Utman) , which develop from the earlier idea Of a V.'Orld· encompassing c001\ic man. to the denial or that 5IS of thought. 1bi: oppO&itioo of the~ tv.·o isalmOS'I um"ersal, and it n1ay be helpful 10 ,·tew them unOO:r the rubrics atman and oha~1kara, more or less adequately lranslaled as 'transcendenl sell' :\od 'ego self.' Roth u:.nns arc prescnl and de\•eklping in the Upanb.adi; (around 700 BC), and h3ve long 1&.nd rich hi$1orics after this tlmc. At1na11. although always.also a gcncrnl le rm for all kinds of scJ...es as "''e shall sec in moo:. deta.ll later. cotne$ to refer to a sense of '/-ncM· $-Upposed to be independent of, prior to. and uansce1)dent of the Rux of temporal tbange ('11U1l$tll'tl') and the particuJaJS of personal· it)' and world. ll is tdllO ultimately in1criu-r, being for instance compared lO a thwnb-siud man wi1hin the heart . .11harnk4ro, literally the 'uttew.oe of the word "r·.' bec::im~ ck>sely related to ptide and an inflated ~ase of personal v.'Orth v"bicb was thought to result {rom ignorance of one's true nature. ·rwo wot& often used with u.h111nk'1r'1 St1gg.ei;t its nar~tic dimensions: xaJ111•a. ·.swolJcn and heavy with tt SCI\~ of self importance.· and SffUl)'a, ·the i;nlile of pride of one who reiceives a compliment or views tucnsclf ina mirror. ett.·(definitions from Hulin, 197R). Nce
al terms. while ahatt1karo is one of th.edeadlic~t (if OOl th~de0:dlieS4)

of '5ins. · Full discussioni; o! 1hc earlydc\lclOpmenl or •he lV.'th a rene:
262

&ffluxxl in CQ11tt:r1

of lhe bod)· which unites Lbc arms and leg.$. IJ'l S\tneral, it wau the unily, lOIJlil)' or inner life pl'inciple or soul of a. peoon. ;:ind even later. in the cl115$ic11l 1rad.itlot1, a1tnar1 retains ao implicit reference to the unity o( tb4;: body and its p&ycl\ological facultit:o. Fr0m ;a nan1e for a person'! wboleoess, ao,1011 caine to designate a profoundly $pi.ritual •numi1wus' i;ct1$(.o( consciousl'>elfllood, \'try close to many \lo'elilcm definitions 6( lht self. AhamkunJ was a \\'Ord inventt:d by the priestly authots of the Upanisacb. Jt wtis used primllrily ti> den the sense of '/·ncss' Or' 'mio~ni::»' wb?cb arises in a child at" ce11ain age, or by cxtcnskln in a crtjlitOr god or creative principle a1 a certain u;1on1cnt in cosmogenesi:s. d..: 1))omcnt a!ttr which individuation or sep01.rarioo or particular en tide.~ Is an issue or (a.<1. Jn different wa)'5 bolh a1m1111 ~nd aluunkara nacued a sense o( /•neM, while this became under~tood as posiri\•e for oon·bodily and transce1Jdent utn1an and ncga• ti\'e for bodil>' and 'i\'orldly 0J1amkaro. there is tin easy, efforde!>S qualit)' 10 mrtny dcscriptiOl\S()f arma.n. whcrcasQhutnkura is typically filled with S1rugglc to claim, asser1 or become a selt One could view much of Indian philOSC>phy a:s. an a ttempt to separate '1rue' (positive. attnat•··Uk.C) fro1n 'false· (negadvc, alta.tnkaro-llk.e) self· hood. In tltls tbaptcr. we shaU ~ltcmpt to look more deeply into these ideas. tradng the evclutiC>n of the con.ccpts of 'self' by 3 tcvle14• of the c3tl)' lndiru1 literature of tbc Veychoanalytk and ancicn1 lndia.n theories about the .self. We wil101so try to ~how that 1be IDd.ian ooncems ~nd formulations nrc not ,,.Unply ancient or textual. The paroJJels in coruemporary b1dian life ••.rt- ~m11rkablc ln th-tit wu1inuity wilh the ancien1 uadition. We wi.U (ur1Mr attent~ to ui;e p~ychoonalytic thought to unco,•er oommon tbooreljCl.ll ground.s for unSitive) 263

PrllkllSh D('sai aJJd Alfr<'d Col/in.r y,·eSttru \'iews of tJtc lndiao .seo.sc oC<"tn at,,1411-self ha\ C been tb~ or literary artists - Forster, Hc..,i:e. lGpliJ~gnnd Elk>t CQOlC to ntind. A nt hropologbts. psy4,":hOletgists and psycboan_a l)'SIS who have re-Celltl)' begun studying the persooolitics of actual Indians an~l tbeir soclal re1ati~ have in general been 1oorc negative, and h..i\'C nOI discovered 3 s1able11nddct'initc self. in.1ooe!$eS, 11 dyna111jc of particu1atecxi:hanges (called 'Lnixing' to the exten1 that they are in-cflcxi,·c, tha1 is, extern~dly rel~ted : ' niarkiog' w~u asymmetrical; aod •unmatching' insofar as tho)' tack affinity nnd arc uns1~1 ble or intransiti\·e (Marriott. l980). Roland (JY80) 1den1l(ic:s a ·familial self charnc1cr1ted bf partial mcrgC'rS, ft!' of fa1.hcrs and OOll (~Jled 'itlcalil.ing set( objec1• cela· 1ion11hips f0Uowi1lg Kohu1, 197l). bt11 like Ou1nont also allows f(lr an iinn1anent anc;I 1can'iCcndcnt self 1tp-.i.r1 from 1be famjJial oue Kaknr( 1981) rro1ua11 E1iksonilul pcn,pecti\·e, identifies an unstable "hen1ation of $Clf·rCg<'rd between grundiusity and sclf·de\·al1.1a1ion as charucterislic of the lndia.n 1)Crsonality. B.K. Rama.nujan ( 1%0), in a lucid eSS.'l'j, :tct-nowledgcs il rtalily behjnJ 1be notorious I Unlogn~I defect b)' "'-estem observers. Thl5 lingui!.tic metaph11r a:w:ns that \vhat is: said, 1hough1, done or fell need not be a rcsuh of nn idculty stable intetior self •exprc-5Slng ib nc:eds; ns it "'ere. but 1:i1her the mote or less nppr0priatc rc:i1ponse of ao Ahantkaro-scll to the en,·ironmcnt ot the l'l10tl\eot. Like Dumont and R(lfand. Ramnnujan rtt0gnizes a necessary oonoorn 'A'ith uniV('n<1Js (lr e ntities which nte11gllL. Thisdistinctlon berv.·cen t"\l.'il 1

kinds

or selr (contextual "·

lra.nsceodeot, -Otc.) has been l.
264

SeJjhood i11 eontex~

'split-level consciouiin.esS' (Desai. 1 980~ f>esaj t1nd Coelho. 198 1). T b.is eoneir:pt indicates a lrcquent spljt between public and pri""1e scl\'eS. i.e. , wh.al o_nc expre:ssc!I ou1wardly (or prelends) and what one ri'ally feels or bcUc\'~. Rnmanujnn obi;cn.•c5 a, key tac• nbout the eo1ergence of "univer· sats· ui l.ndi>ln though 1. In each of.the cases be ales (tbc cxpl ~ive experience or ling~1 isli c meaning- .fphn1a, 1hc transcendent cMhetic cxpcriencc-rasa. aud ~piritual release - 1•1oksa- 'the pattern is the ~·une : a necessary scqucntt in time ~·i1h suict rules of phaite 3nd context ending in a free stat~. · for ca~b o£hls exaiuple$, i111erestifigly. tbc 1r:tdi1iQn1' abo111nd with cOntro.,·ersy abOut the same oont.ral dilem1na: d~ordoes 1)0t (and ifso liowdocs) thccontcxt-seusiuve Oo"' preceding lhc momen1 of 'freedom· hring the Inner ttbout1 Jn \\'h:1t y,--ay is this flow C\'cn rclcvttnt 10 ft¢'edotn1 (cf. Biardeau, 1964; ~ia.ssort and Pa1~·ardban. 1969}. In the Vcdtn111 school of 1houglu, for exarn p~. S;,\nkara concludes tbal lhe olll)' ·cootcxt' which brin~ abou1 t ntigh1cnmcrH (rc:iliT.Jltion of absolute an,,an-st.1() l\ the hearing ot (;¢rtaln stnlencie$ (f(>tn tbe Upanisads ('I am brahnM11, [the absolute rcalityl' e tc,) rrom 1bc spirilu"l preccp1or or guftl by n disciple \\"it.ha prt>pe:rly prepared. rei.-eptive ntiud (Liooitl'be, 1939). "'Jedi1a1i()i,, yoga, c1c .• cannot create lh c cx.perience: of enligh1en· ment (moksa), ALI l'•e)' C.'l.n do is help to remove obslacles aod peel a...,·ay the sense of '1han1/.:.ora which hr.t' been superimposed on lhc eter.n:i11y fTcc and un:ique ""'"""· Ncvcrlhcl~s. a 'context' 1$ n11,vays 1hcrc, even in Vcdant
265

PrakuiJ1 Desai (Jnd Alfred ColUn.s

possibilh)' of union o r merging of in.;idc and oulside. ~ubj«1 and predicate. agieot and oonlext , guru :utd disciple. In 1hc Ayu f\oedi~ lndian mcpriatenesi; give rise ton $CO$C or self. NQdon! uf lhe 'self in psychoanalfS iS and related deplh· pS)'ehoktgieal traditions have s lons, and stiLl ...:~~·,diJtg history. Frcud·s t..'Ofl<:ept or 'ego.' as bas been not«t by u.r1.a.nehe and Ponlalis ( 1973). wn.o; never inte.nOOd 10 designate a purcly .$1r1.1c:tut':tl entity. The e~ential ambiguit)' (If ego as the: rep~nw.1lve o f reality. source of defence, etc., a od ego llS al.$0 a libidlmiJ or narci::sisticobjccl (and bt ncc rcalJy astl/image) hMbccn one of the gre.i1lCSl sour«'S of Cttativi1y '4'ithin psycboanalyM~. Hart1nann's ( l 964) 9lhlRlptS to clarify the col)ee.1'.)!s of ego a nd self were bi.sic U'I lhe dcvelopnltl'll Qf ego psycholog}. bnLmay bavc sepai·alcd 1besc ¢00ecpts loo .i.batpl)' (er. Kohut. 1968). It ii widely reoognir..ed that Freud's iotert:$Llo Jn1rap$}'Chi.c proet,.,_~S sometilnes kd him to pu1 lcu emphasis on 1hc e n\'ironment and its approririatcnoss to the person than on cont11cts whhnl the psyche. In ~pile o( this. ho\\.'C:\'er. tbert. arc abundan1 indkatiom of bjs ongoing, alwa)'t1·implici1 concern with the se1f-c:nviron1nenl reh1lionship.1'hb 001Kem is quue eviden1 1n the '1nctar"ychol0$f pape11 written around 19 15. Ooo 1ening cxarnple is I.he idea of the ·purified pleasure ego' {l~rcud 1915). This e ntity "''alJ thoug.b1 t ( 1 include the cn\·imnmcnt as parl of I.be (f-nntasi4->d) sclf. ln so f;).f as t hr11 w11..o;. ph:aswable. In otl•er v;'(lrd), 1he appmrwiatc part of 1he en\'ironment "''~$ in<:luded within the se11:sc of self. ~·hi le the inapptoprialC part bccantc 1hc 'other,' along v;·ith 1he pa:in l1 induced. An undc~1:1nding of a part C>f 1he salt' :ts outsidt' is i.u1plici1 in th i~ rormulalioo, Eveo more s1gnif1c.:3nt Wl\$ Freud's (19l7) dictun'l lhi1t 'the shadow of lhc objcc1 has fnllen 01~ the ego' \1. hi-ch led to the 1det1 tha1 aspccb of lbc ego are based on the rtl3rionllhip between :.elf 11nd cili jcct images. PetbtiJ)5 chc most ltlliog i.ns1aoc~ of Freud'' ooneetn with th< selrs e nvirol'l ment, and 1hc inf~n1iJe feeling o f unity between ~i f and world that &01ucti ~ Ji\les on lnlo ,.Julll\OOd 'side byMde' t,1,•i1h wbat the ntodem WC$t th1nhQf •~1 11.111orc oorm ;iJ sel'I~ o fscp.ir.itcnes.~from 1hc \\'orld. is found in Ci1•itizi11io11and 1u Dist(ntl~nt..~ (frcud 1~30. p. 68).

266

Sc/fh()()d in COllttxl Our prcl.imina:ry Q \ C1View or tho Indian tilt1'3ture on sctlhood wggcsts that inoer expcricoc.d of «clfhood \\'ere. {l)w3ys oorrolatcd with a certain cnYironmcntal ·appropriateness.• ahhwgl'I 1his \11as OOMCiously denied b)' 110ll1c lndian philosophic ttnditiC>ns. At lhis momcn1 we simply n01e 1he pa.ralJet with psychoanalysis, and suggest that w n1c of the same pcrplexilles tire pre$enl both iu li"1i11n though1 and psycboaoal)11ic object rehttions theories. Perhnps the most imp<>rtant of these is this: /.t lhe sdf/()C(lted wh.(Jlly withi11 the perwn, or is it panfy locat~d (tJr fdr 10 be located) vutSide, amorig ob/ecss'l Con~·t..,.~~lf. is rlle h'orld t 1111'rely quufrk the.self. or l1as it romrJ1oweome 10 ralencnce has been imnginatively reooMtructcd by Erik$on ( 1981) and Kohut(1978) MSQmctb.ing prior 10 t"11tyclcar sense or ooesc1f as separate a.nd differen1 from the '04ber.· They suggest lhot n S(IM of self·aw:arcnc-ss. or pethsps better ii .scnst of selflu>Od, arises cpigencticall)' in all babies ro11on31c enou..g.b tC> have rcspo11$ive mothering. The expenencc 1nay be marted by the selective snuling response to the mC)thcr, an ccscatic 1:no1nenl '\\'hen the mo1hcr's11nd i.nla1u'smutual dc:-.Ught in theothc-.r's existence lays the g:r<)u.ndwork for the narcissistic de.,·<:lopmcn1 line of self reg;itd. The hcari of narcissistic develupmc-nt seems 10 be in this highJy ~1notional. ·numinous' experience of•/.ncss. · Erlksoo (1968. i9Sl) b)·pOthcsizc.i; that this l·ne!>S quickly becomes ~ntcd with !JOutces or pleasure 11nd cffccti,·coo.l.'S (sex organs. muscut.'t1urc, oogn1tiYe faculties). and shortJy thct'e alter is constrained by M"cinl oonsidcratious of shame ;tnd guilt, am! beoo01es: 'ritualaed' in identification \l.'ith 3 sociaJ ~lf ;)OCeptable to parenu 111ld socict)'.l Like Erikson. l, self· imoges. goals, etc. ln K.C)hot's terminology the question becion1t$: what is the rel3rionship belwten the 'whole self' and the parts which seem to comprise i1, or e"en l>ePA ccn thi! \\hole sell 11nd the ·n1.1cl.car self in \\. hic.b self·parts rut organized through more or less \\'Cll-dcveloped narcissistic <»nfigura1-ioos1~ Kohur s mO:.l de· \'elope\l lhoughts un this su])jet.1 arc oont..ined in a lcnglhy te11er written in L97d and re'·~d ~ul:'ll\cquenlly as part t.lf his coUe<:led writinp:s (1918). Thc~c ·Remaiks about the i:orination of the Selr tecord Kohut's ntO\'C1ncnt (rom 1he p<.l$ition tbn.1 'self nuclei' 1

1

267

Prokasl1 Oe.~ai at1d Alfred Collins ('body-mind f.ragments') ro."'Llesc:e intva IC>lal self u:i lhe Kleu (OA•blch he ,,ever abandoned) that 'the dc,1ck>pmental path of the ex.pcr:i· e1.1 ce of (the child"s) $Clf is separate from I.hat follo"'ed by his eKpedeooe of the s.ingle body part.o; and s.inglc bodily and mcn111I

ff
environment (mother} responds 10 tht child ' wi1h '"''0 set& or responses: one is attuned to bis expcnence of sing1e p.'l.rts of hi.i body • •. and another is auuned to hb beg.inning experience of himsel(as a .. • coherent nnd~nduringorganization . Le ., to him M a sell.· Kobu1 (l9n) uJso speaks or 1his primal setr as a 'self in sraru t1(1S«11di: •a vi.rt1.1al sell.' ·pri1n¢d." ash \\'trt:, t0 tesrond to 1hc mother·s treutlng it as a "''hole :i;tU by bet:ooung <>ue. 1·berc is an ambiguity ol lhe ' /·sense.' or self in the theories just dc:\Cribcd. The 1 -~nsc is- considered by Erikson and Kohut 10 be ti prin1.:1Jy race of cxislencc, aod only secondarily 1de.ntified "·ith sources of pleBSure, abilities, goals, rules of cOnlSCie.nce, e tc. And )'cl it appar<:utJy a lwa)S ari$es in a Lnoment of intimate interaction Mth a ·ooncexl' (usoaJly lht: m<1lbe:r 3nd her emo1ionciJ responsi,•e· ness 10 the youog dtild). Knhut's paradigmatic situution is the ·mirroring· relaliOR$hJp bet...,cen the 1nntbcr and infant, where 1hc cht1d·s naSC'C.'nl seU'bood 1!1 con~'C)'Cd lC'> i1 by the •gteam in the mother's eye.' The mothcr·s: a ttention is a n()tess;uy ooa1t.t1 for the bab>·'s self-experience. But clearly this situation is alto one where the baby resu in 1he mother' s snns, or in bed (an exlens:ion of her body), ;l.l'ld julil ;ifltrorshonly before 1bc intimn10 sharing v.ith her in nurS:ing. Libidinal ru1d narci~s1s1ic rela1edncss sre inseparable, and classic-aJ psych~ nnolystli ha,·e pro1>erly criticiz.ed Kohut for rn.ininlizing the. emo· tionallychargcd libidinal aspcciso!tt1.e r.el:idonsh1p<>\•I o f v.•h1ch tM ~I f experience arises. Bul nott the p;:irallcl with the Indian situation described ea1her. There, too. "'e hypo1hes.ized that rhe experience of -;eUhood, nnaJngous t o Kohufs J-n~S$. arises only in a co1ucx1 of wann cnlntion11l relatedness. If the ultimacely pri,•ale. interior sense. of lhi: I oocurs only in 1hc context ol eHect.ive relationships, v.·c have :4

268

St:lft1()()d •n conten

natural paradox, one nQt generated by cullurc-spccificch<>KC:s. bui ralbc:r which pcop~ -ot all cuhures mui;1 faoe. Hence tlnOther purpose of this es.sa)' is lo exploce how 11ldi.ans have dealt with th.e

rar3doX-,

and

romp-arc 1his with se;..ero.I \li"es1ern depth·

pSyt.bo&og.i<:al solutior.$, showing how tbts paratJox can be over+ come. 'I' T HEORY IN Tile WEST

l,,ct us ex.amine so mt rec:ent p$ychoanalytic theories a litllc (ur1ber. Erik Erikll<>n ( 1981) . \li'rititlg of 1he /-experience in Jesus.· Galilean s.,.yinis. li$1Sse\'eral t'SS<:ntjciJ iogtedientsof perceiving oneself as an Flrs1, 3nd most ccintral. is numi!Wsity: ·Tue/, nfwr =.tll, is 1be grouod ((IJ' 1be . . . assurance that each person is a ctrttc.r of awarenc.M- , , , i\ een1er $0 numinou!I that it u.mounts to a !lel\SC of being alive. and more. or being the \•itaJ concUtion of cxi$1ence• (_p. 323). A r«.0nd t::SU.ntiel rea1ure is the 1'$ ' lutttillQSicy: iLS consciousness.. lt was thi.s a!i-l)«l of the self 1ha1 \Villiam James (1890) called the. 'l' or 'pure eg0· in opposi1ion to the 'me· or objec:Uvc selr. 11\jid. Erikson l'i.nds e&ential 10 the e:me.riencc or the /-sense tin interplay \\>ith a maternal Other v.·ho in some sense is ~rcci\•ed as u prima.I You . Ftom Lhe beginning. accordjng to Eri~S01', the re is a !lcnlie o( 'binary' relatedness ioherenl io the/; and ll>e I and tbt: Yo•~ arc different, though intimately joi1'1cd, Erikson (198 1. p. 330) make~ i1 clear that lhc child contributes to themothefs /-sense a.s v.·ell a$ gaining his /-scni;e from ber: 'it seertl!I of vital in1portance that thisOlher l'he 1uo1her)and, indeed. related others. i11 11.1mexpe.ricnc:c the nev.· beingasapnst':rit;rt 1ha1heightens l11rlr SCnSC of I .' To t ran$1ate Erikson's idea i.n Kohuliill) terms. v.--er may~ay lha1 the cltild is a .self object for the mother as mucb as3he is for hin1, and their interll<:tioo ho:s the n1u1unlity of a field in whic:h both !Xlnicipatc. A fomth nc:cc>~ry mgredjent of I-net;$ is a sense of ·oentrality," related to "'hich is a feeling of intier (ltuonomy, tlm<>unling to a sense or being able 10 oc1 ef/tc11.v~ly. ~fuch of Erikson's cmy discu~'\e.$ hmv the /-sense could maint3.in &Ol'lle Jt\\'S or ancient times who \\'Cte itself iJ) the dail)' bfe subjecrcd 10 an environmenI 1hai negn1ed in one \\'9)' or another almOSl aU or its es.-scntial oondi1jons. A<;oordi1tg to ErikM>n, the solutions arri\•ed a1 formed ttle hail~ of the Jewish and Chdsaian

·r

or

Proluuh V....f _, A/frl'J Collins rcliglons~ in both cases. lhough more tlrongly i.n Judaism. lbe I

wu

pttSdf.dl m a Ood "·ho is the tra.11..oendcnt ccnlcr of the lire of chc con1mu111t)' und of the lndivtdual I Ceoce, Jehovuh :t4i.d to ~1ol«. ·I am 1ha1 I am: Rdil'Oft cornpeo.satcs for a 1hrc1te:ned I by trn.nseeod1ng tho need for :a •upportivc ro111e"'· bot also itJClf supportt the l«mc of tbe l'IC~-.na c:ommwut). bc:cornoUll. MWC:Ontcxt, One: or the most amportanl ··ay' that lh~ )cwi!ih

God dOC$ tbis, E.rlk.'GC>n fU,AACSI., is by Wt'Dftb.cC.il'\& tlJt (atbtJ•JOl'l. 1petn'linc•1° 1dcnti6cation of the /«nse- (by 51rcssins the rela-

0r

tionl:hip ol 1el.lhood to' thc ' f11the1s'!

~1osc<&, ct~. )

and

utrin~1c:ty

coanec:tin& h with the tdta ol the ull#n bnel as a 9'1stoncaJ c-n1iry t.ran"oCtndins, actual geOgr'aphJC: bouJ,dllrie& and 10 some cx1c111. ruJCurcs. This illmlfatna fiftbet!CnuaJ qulltyofthe /: tbcontinuity. We lhaR find a "'mjlar phc.nomcnon in India, where the ohatnkart.14Clf t5 "'nweun1es dcfin«i lhto~ a COflriftUOUi falhfrson a1~t) scrcu:hiQg back through 1be ancestott. •o lhc god• In Kohul's (l977) ep11ene1ic 1heory, the •.;park in the m0lb4:r''!: eye' as sbt k>oli.t at tt1m a111akem • \m,Wly pt·c~lcnt -.c:lf· c.xper1enoe- In the )'OUO# infant; 11in1ilatly Erit.wn spc11.k1 o[ ' the early tcedrna, iitudon of tM bu.man ~nfan1. inc::tudln1 lha1 tnectlng 0( q o to eye •hteh, 11 i11 u~rea!ltngly c:kar. ~ 11n imptHlanl '4>W'tt of the tense or/ ar~ ot a primal wr: But for Kohloit a 1ec0od and equally impc>nant i001U of the f is an '1deahting 1ncrgcr' '41lh t he pnrcn1 (usually lhe f{ll hcr ro1 the buy) l'be cWJd $ \lill-s.hJlty 1-iel'llC is inehldtd and partiapatet an the mue:l'I more slori(Xl~ f•SCMt and pcri;0n1111 e(fOCJi~encss O( lhe p~rcnt, lb I.Iii Strengthening its.cir Bolh this ldca.bxing IOft of rc12.'tiomhip and the m.i:avrW'lg rclatioosh.1p with the molher Kohut c:a1ts ·~lf-obJ «.1' rollltion~ In nor"wJ de\·tklpmt:nt they b«ome ptrbally 1ntcrna.lizcd as. ambt· tionl Md ~ out or ..m.i~h dnetop 1 rc:Ja11\cly permanrnt 'CObeiivesclf.' but noQrK'I e'·er bccornesablc wholly t..ldo 14·1~11 eoo1emaJ co•tnbutioo 10 hi1 ~of/. E,_pbc11 1n Kuh11t'8 work Is • m0ecss ,..hc•tb) mirrc1r iog and Kkati:tmt bcc-ome wpecu nf mncr :1UUaurt, panuin, indl:pCndcnl o!thc envimnmcn1. Kohut, b°"'C\'Cf, does 1.01ton ~llf 0

210

S.l/llood .. CONat er the po5Mbibtyo( 11 cullum1t)'·defined environment lhflt d
oonccx1 ror its setfhnod. Would 1n1ern~lliia\ic)n OCC"Ur i.n IUCb a c.a.w? •~It p0!>!1ble for 11.c:ul1u.re to prov;dc a 1 '«puo.Uvc se.lf-obJcct context •hlCb could endUJt: in bcallh)' iodnidulk for 1 ltfctime" Con\CfSC. I)', could persons 1n that a1!1u.re karn to uamform 1hcir sel\ef in order 101nakc1he cnvirontntnl more Opptoprlatc to 1l~m? We will &ugges1 that Inda appoacbes ruch a rultwe.

THE INDIAN SEU' ll'I THE VEDIC PERIOD: A CASE

lfiSToRY Sclr-feeUnf!. so far as it can be djsccrncd in the ~der Jndia.a text$ (R>& v..i. prirnanly), ....,. ca· • .tnd it pov.·crful »cnse ot tN'ccuvcneS&. la me PN~w.tlll hymn which ocaus late in 1l'le Rig Voi• (X.90). coi;mic cio.Jcr1ficial cclcbratlom (exchanges bet\\·cen pocdo '""" and 1hc coetnOi) Vl'Clro in[erprctcd as aw of a Jingle. ~t ftj'UR. a Cosanc \(an (PausiJo) •hote body wtJ found to contain lhe"'·holc cosmos through idrnt1fic:a11on of hit a.niculated parts with lhose Qf Otecosmic regions (his bre;uh wus the wind, hll eye. the sun, etc.). Thr Cos.m«; Man. and his human couaterpa:n the~' (tht man •ho pe.d for the: ntt), \\ere f;)'mhoheRJI)' 1eborn Crom n p1e-ro.sm1c ti ate of 1hing~. GAOJ'C o( "ndiUc1cn1i111eJ rna1ri•. c-alJcd bruJwUllf The 01mJ'(t
Prukasls

[k$(J;

on1l Alj're1l -C,llli1u

s~~qut: 1l1 efforls u> in1ern3li7.c lho sncrifice wflllin the bodily. ml--lal or spiritual st>lt of the hum
Collins, 1976).

11lU$ arose the Upanisadic doctrine of an homunculu.s-seff called atmon, no1 )'et equivalent to 'he tr:tnsccndcnt ar,11on bul on lhc W11Y

to 1l. 1'h~s th1unb--sizcd '\'Crsibn of the Cosmic Man wilbin the htilit (m1gu\·1/1ao1natro·purusn) served to alJijy $0u1 e of the fear of di.ssoh.1· t.ion !hat WM widespread tu this time, but was oot complctcl}' ~ful. F'or exa1nple. die quest oftlie Oudt.lh<' was nlotivatcd by hi.s perception ol bolh 1.he. fu1illt)' n f 1hc communal lliltriftc.' t or the Cosmic Man and the frog.ility aod t('anscic ncc of the t1acrifi.ccr's body. and led 10 a total rejection of nntichmen1 to any kind of

11.hamkara or bodil} self, even oflhc subllc k.ind rep1'<:$Cntcd b) 1hc 1

b u1u uoctdus self.

\Ye may ~pecul a te . as a re1>ul1 of this disquie t, son1c Upnnisad1c

t hought mo.,•ed towards interpreting 1he Co$mic ri.inn, i1nd e\'Ctl the humunculu~ .!relr,

as !\.""Sting on a yet 111orc: $"ubde and interior sc1f. 1be nonbodily and indes1tuctiblc, tra nsocndent a1t~()J1. ThU$ the feat ot de:11h (umlerstood as" oarcisslstic rear of bodil)"lnc:ntal self dissolutjou) which the carljcr ri1ul'll·nl)1hicnl thought had not. re· mo.,·cd. \\'!IS ;n lei.st 1cmporariJy aod ror soinc people O\'eroomc. We willaUe1npt 1oex1l lore 1bisde..•ck>pmen1 ii) n>oredctail, using the device or treuting the Co:;n1ic ti.tun as a c~ hist~)ry . We will call hi.Jn Pt~jlipa1i. Literally the 'F111hc r of Offspring· or 'Lord of Creai~ 1urci,' tihhough he takes. on many o:uuc:s and pcr.sonalilie), Out approach "'·ill 1rca1 PraJapati as 11 model of the life t.'YCle uf LI:~ a ncico1 lnllian self. \V·e \\'ill begin wilb lus birth. Pr:tjapati's birth is riepen1cdly described in pb)•sical terms in the tC~l$. Sut typically he ls: 001 born o l a molW:r or Olhcr 11.ingulat pcnwn; o(lcn he arises from tho pre-cosmic \Vaters. an i1na.ge also very common in 1he Rig Ve,fa.

to the beg.inning this wC•lr, and Prajnp:iti was boru Crom it. That is wh)' w(>n1en, cows and mares g1\'C birth after one )'C3r• •*;a1hpa1ha Brahm"nt' Xl.t.6.J-2 Prajnpati's binh ul)ually rt$ultlS, as here. from a de.s;re ()o his

m

Sefj1i()()d u1 c()nte.xt

'molbers' JX'l fl tQ 'be born' . The verb (or ' be OOtn' (prajaytmolil) occumng i.n 1hc pf'CScn1 text (from p ra·jllljon in lhe optati\'e middle\10icc) expresses paic:11~· de~irt$ for an act or •binh' in "·Neb lh¢ dis1inction between parerit and infatit j!I nol :;harpty drawn. a nondi!lge il) even more explicit in the e)l:pres!>iQn rm1ayebl1ilr 1ant1tc, 'l·lc extends (t4n·.' to extend, hold out') hi1·nself through off.spring. · The idea of a seffhood uniting a man ilnd hi& llOO is 01nnip1escnt ln the Vedic litc:rtture, for Cllample,

in the expression, 'You arc 1he am1an (self)c.alled Son· alklressea lo

the nev•bom n1a.le- ~h.iJd b}" 1he. father (Po.,askoro GrJ1)f Indian cultu~. and derive (tom a basic conception of the parcnt~hild relationship "'· hich s1 ~ genc:mtional a1n1inuit)' over sep:trolion. SimQn and \\'elner (1966, p. 312) find a si:milar oonc.:eption in I looierk: Greece, where •poetry li.nks previous gencrntions ~·ilh the prbtnl ge1iera· 1ioo,' thus blurring ' the lioe$ Of indi\liduaJ idcntit)'.' The connection of rid of tht gc>ds (similat to what Erikson finds in Juda.is.In) i.s clear a 1 Al1areya Arn11y11ka [l. 1.8. Thi.( W<)rkl '-''as water~ Tilis (water) was lhc rool. that {v.'Ofld) w351hc s hoot. this the fa1.hc r, thOS(. 1hc sons. Whate,·cr is i hc $01\'~ is rhe father's and wh att~·er is tbe falher•$ is t~ son' s. ~1ahida~l Aitate)•a who knew this said, ' I knc>"' myself a' reaching lO the gods, and lhc gods as t('3t"-biu.g to nu:.'

'Rirth' extends the self ii> (the ro1m of) a person's offspring. Jt ~ ts~cs

a preceding

ronnless. fluid su11e tQ become more definite. 273

Probuh Dt»I mtd Aljrrd Co/Un~ 1n tQmClhtni 11 ..ean act of ~lf-n:penins (nprt"''9Cd also by I~ idea o[ '"P"1, 'i-nwerrl tirood111&'). Equ:tlly fuuda1nent11J tn Prtljapad'9' biirth ts th" requirement of tcH uoifieatinn In the beg,nning •tR lhc xvcn B~.11tru. (pruno·,). The) 111c:re h'dcfinitc arKI rormJe..~ (11$111). They nu.de lht'nl'>Ch'CS inl(> ~\·en Person... bul 1eaJizinc llwt df',ccould not be born (propl\galc ~lt.n) 1n 1his ~~the St:'\'Cft Pcnom into ooe PcNOn Thi~ Pen.on bc~ct:11: Pr•jer•11 So:iJpulh11 8ralmta'N1

vr.1.1.

lhtS stocy ~xrrei$C'S the n1uluptiaty of PrajiJMll'<> origjm, tatbcr llM \fclani.c: loJ(l.n's ·p«n obj«u,' oc Kohut's~Mt) tdeaof•ub'I* 'Kif nuclei' (Kohut. ;,11so ~c: Gtdo. 1979). Cmpltat.ly. a

1m.

dc1ern1ina.1e. cohcsi\'¢ \\'Crtd arises uul of a

pr~c:cding

M11tc of

indctennin•C)' or di~nk1 'lbc ~ I r of Prajapa1l l.X'lmplctc• hi1n 'as the "'bole completes tht f*tS' CRtnou. 1951). 11 ~a pnnortc b) "h1ch roh~lon •s comtructW. In 5\lmmary. the wlf is~ Grm 1111d cohcsi\'tl LltrOt1 ~h ii\ tine~l dc.\e
\\'hen Praj.1pati was Mm fn,_'m 1he golden eu, he floa1rd C'ln the CQ-SbcJl (C'Jronc }Cdl, /\l Uk end "I lhc ye.1r ht' t.poke LhcQt1C •nd 19;-o \)lbiMc•'Onh. ·Bhuh. Ohu\ab. S\•,· and each becam~ the d1\i$ion of tbeeosmo1 •h.ch it named (eanh. tumosphl.lfc:, r.k.y). ·n,crcforc, 11 chikl 1pevk11 v.ords of ortc .nnd 1'A'o S)llahle1 4ll C>l'.le )tltr uf "'9ge. Prajaptti'!I ~'OTd!I atso bi.'Clln1c the 6\c ~~ A.1'4 alter one )Car Praj.apau \tood v.p, on 1be th tee patt'l of the t\NI~. 11us ~ • h) a chtkt ~• tnds at one: )nt.

.,.,rd

Sarap1r1h" /Jr11/11nn1111, X1 1.6.1·6, Here we ha\'C. TC(::Ofd ()( •~v

•sc

or PraJ1&.p.i1ti'a 'dc\'Clopn'1Cfll411mlle-

\Concs.• the oi sp:.~ 141bis firU words and uf 'Lmdw.I: uprigPL N, v.c !law bcrorc. Pnij1r:11rs artion' arc ta.ken I\ paradl,,natk' for h\llUAn!i.

274

Stlfl1{)(1(f ,., , contl!Xt

Our r«erd or PraJapati's life takes G jump from age one yca.r to lhc lime of his ov.·n parcn1hQOd; lbe tcx1s are ¢1>uccrncd almost exchis.i\•¢J)'. '' v.rould .sectu. "'"ith issues nf reptodu<.1ion and 1beir implit
Prajapati, eaU~.d Oealh und H unger. creates offspring i.n order to e{lt them. 1ltus, he is called Adib (a ronn of the Mother godd.:ss: a play on word::: i.s pri?Sent: ad me.ins 'cal') . Jn the l>egi.nningv.•a.'> only I lunieror Death. He thought, 'Lei me ti.ave a sci(.' l·lc sang :tod w
Prnj1•1niti eo1itted the \Valers, v.·hjch evol,·cd ioto foa1n that be<:an1e in SUCiC¢.~si6n cla)', sand, pc:bblc:s, stones, ore and gold. Sarapatba IJruhruana, VI. l.3. 1~6 .

Prujapari desired 10 reproduee hltitsclf und prncdce taptu (inwatd brooding. concenrracion). I-le rc lcll.SCd the waters, wl1ich Oo~d out of hi~ body. fhcn he eril'-'l..W. 1he \\'tue11i In the form of an cgs \l.bicb evol,'ed into the oosmos, including the earlh and the plants aod aninlal$ wbic.h Ji,•e on it. Sat"patha 8ral1ma11a Vl.1.1.1· IS. \Vbe1l Pn:tjupti hnd produced b\'ing b(ings he looked about and from delight his &e1neu llowed. Semen l!l tire·:sap (ra.ta), ;wd as 275

Pra.kJ;s. Dt.SOI Dnd Alfred Culliris

fur M life.--s1ep resches .so far exteods Prajapati':s self, Sa1a1X1tll11 8fal1tna1w. Vl.2.2.6. We sec here a.gain the fluidil y ol lhe initial stages 1>f self<.manatiou, and in the first story tbl.' progtc$sion Crom softer to b:irder material$ (water. f0tim, clay, sand, 1>ebbles, f tones. ore. gold). A sad, bu1 for the auth011 of 1he Brahman.as, O\!ef\\·helmjngly signif1Ca.ni resuh of Pr3japali·s graodiose sel(-cxtension "·ai;: his fulllng fl/Mr/ into •he entities he emitted. Often 1helie nre C0$1nlc c.lemel'lts (a~ abOvc); equ::ill)' often ri1ual ~lc:tne•lU: or parts of the body ati: 1ncntloned. Prajapati pr0duccd creatu res~ and h~vin.g 'run the: "·bole: race' (image of o co1nple1e cycle of cxisle(l(;e) fell asunder. 1'he. Btea1h (prono) "'Cn• out of him, and then vigor (t.egaS) depart.ed. He fell down :ind food poured Oul of his C)'C. SuU1JXtfha Bra/11,umn. vn l .2. l.

Hnving prt>due«I CteAturcs Prajapoii [oil apan. and Ille 6rcatb (prt11u1) \\'cnt out of hito. 1'hc five bodily p.'11 ts int.o which he fell

we.re: hair, skin. Pesh, b01\C and marrow. He alw fell apa.n into lhe fi ve scn.wn:s and five r~gjons of space. Sa1opoth.t' llrah11w10, Vl. t.2. 17·19. Pra1apati's disintegratiOtl into hi11. world is a et1'U'SI theme of the. earlier 1cln:1-, :tndsoluliuns to th.i$ appareotlydisrres.\ing event are.at che heart of tbO$C texts and 314'<> theUpanis41ds. VatklUS solutions a1c already prt!Sent in the: early texts, man>' mak·ing use of lhe rather-son unit)' 10 reintcgralc th.e rather b)' c:n1phasiriog I.be i.nher· c nceof the fn1hcr in theWll, by the :son'$t1¢1inn to save the father, or more darlrJy, by re-absorbing the son into our fa1her's bodily self. When Prajapari hnd fallen t1p;1Jt :tnd all the food RO\\'ed out o( bis eye, Agiu ('Fire') ate all of it up. PJajnp.1ti's8reacb (prana) be(:l).me the wind. ond his vigor be.came the sun. When 1h e.~ were heated, all Prajapa1~·s Br~Bth, vig<>r a11d food cumc back into h1n1. Thu'i, in 1he Sa<:tifice, when the S~ocr heBts the offering, pulS it on a golden pliit1C and adds kindJing sdclc3~ he pulS B realh. vigor and food back into himself and rein~gmtes himself. Sarapalhu 8rali111011a. VTJ.1. l .4· 10. 1·he personified fll'C god, Agni, hai; here be-come an alter ego fQt

?76

Sf.lfh"tjnplll - he c••~ up 1he prod\Ku or ms f•tbcfs •~lf
l'

Prajapati had created C\'cryth1ng and !cU apari. 1lc111.aid h>Ap1. set lor domg 11?' Pr<'ifll"flli said, ·P~opte will cil1 n1e after you, for whicht'icr ol 1.be ~11 lJ SUCC<"&s:ful in l.lfc, aftc1 bim the)' call tllc f:.ther, gnndfothct, IJ'CU•gtndh....,. ooa and puds<>o • S.>·ioJ. 'So be 11: Agni rc,lorcd hii father 1'hctt.fote, ,.hile being Pr1jt1r11ti? pcos>lc can him A&nl. Satapu1Jro JJral1.,,1rrna

'RC$1Qft me Agni rcpd. '" h11 wtd I

VI.I

l.J~IJ

The Idea of lhe son rcoo-n.c;ri11ulng and re1ntegn11lng tht.' old.

dccri:p.tl falhc1 by catu"lg hlrn ('iot'Otp;fl"Slti.ng,' tJ$ we m."-bt say 1,1"l.ng a psychoana.l)tk term wi•h onl ((Mlnc>W.iona) is ii.milarl) in,ertod In lhe Sraddha•, or mC1tMlnal O(tcr1ogt for the dead ·t~11hcrS' (falhcr, gr3ndfal1.lt'-r and pcat-grandfat.bt.r). These (lffcringll have tbc tim of ~"I the dcpancd antU.wn' bod:iu (X.Dipc. l'ln; O'Flahetl), 1980) by [ceding them b::dk of £ood (P'ndH) tb3t rc.prbtnt their bodid TI1c ball11 are prc~ribcd 10 be eaten by Brahmam oroov.~.,. bo tCJ"f'CSCDl the 'falherJ.' or Lhro•-o in10 l'ire or water (Kltl-t. 1973, p. 480). e'\oidcnll) so that 1heycan be ..-et.urned to a 0'1id rondhion In order to be: reconstituted ;ind th-c fruhcno reborn and ma.owned u1 bea\'t"n Tbc u:odertyl11g onen~ oC father and :t00 is clearly ,l_..iblc m the fcrtiU
i••

m

Prokm/1 Desai and Alfred CQ/lb~ An~rlier in~ltl1~ where the rather 'cat<;" the son in order to re«>n.~uct h.imscl£ 1s the (olloMng.. Prnjapolt~ h.nd emitted creou1rcs and entered I.hem Jn the fo1m of his son. ;-\gui. Then he M:;u-chcd £01 that boy, desiring lhc forms which Agni had lltkcn on. Aware of 1hj11, ,\gni cnlcrcd e\•en IU(lf\! :1nimal roreus. PrajuJd pre\'etlt the S~cri ficc (bimsc-11) lion1 falling ;11par1. But he "'11.S n1ista.kcn: lhc hod1~.t , which

he had not t\ilSimilated to hhnself. hod gone into

"'at~1 ;ul d cl:t)'. He 1ook these and made:. brick. baked it. a.nd

took 1110 hiln-sclt al:;o. Then he "'tts complete. SutapQ.Jha Bruhniutu,, Vl.2.1. Pcajt1poli, in cfrcct. kills I.Us <>wl'l SC)•l an order 10 rcintcgral'c his cren11vc ct1e rgics and re-at11blish fl ooh¢Si\I<; ~U. This refusal of lhe f-.tthtl' tu g.i,·e his body and po'i'·ers to the :wn is a (Onlmnn theme, and seem~ 10 be the meaning Qf 1hc fain.om Swlah'Se!Xl SfOI')' of tM J1itareya /Jr(IJit11urtt1 (Gouda. 19?5, 3St+-5). "l"'he Lndian fathcr•s 11n1mu'> townrds his son h1tS been called the 'Laiu!i Complex' by A .K. Rarn~nujan (1972). Somch1nc~ F-n1hcr Prajnpnti is soved Crom 1.liliin1egca1ioo 1hmu~h his idt:nthy whh the ~on "''ho reintcgrotcs hi1n inll) hJS (1hc 1\0n's) l'l(')d)'• or is himself rt intcgroted in1n 1he fil'ther's ~It or body. 1\1 <>lher 1i1nci;. "' c arc told that Pr.'1jiipo1i f)•CSC.f'\'CS his cohesiveness by .scrara1i11g hi-. O\\'n good and bad par1s, ru>d dere:uing or in olhe r '"d)'S g~nj11.g 1id o r the bad parts. Thi: inlagi: ill u~ually thn1 u f o ~trugglc bcr~·een 1he g~ and dcmvn:> (A~u ro$), both or"·hich arc sons of i:irajap;iti. Th~ 1.>ad side oft he father is idcotit'icd es c.bec:u~o of Pmjaputi"s dis1n tc.~tulio1>, ~nd b) lit: feating or abandoning j1 he ro~k e.s

hinlscl( purely goud :ind 1hcrcb)· in1mon al.

O<:sir<>us o(
darkness for hin1 1tien. l·lcnce. be pul the evd il'llO 1h¢ Asura" nndcast them itside. $(Jl(Jparhtl Rruhmana. Xl.1.6.1·10.

278

S.f'l{hood in M rtl(' ,'t

On 11t1.ini"I me tarth t1111uch the) Nd
Offering: lO Nirru, lhc iOdde.ss ()( OO~lruc\JOR, 10 diip
dl\1ntegnti0t\ 10 the limit to the point ot b15 'having 1uo ht"' Mul"!C· and being 'coruwned 11.nd "~lc.u· (Sa1a1>a1/Ja BrfJ/11.11111111. \'I 8.l.6.); ~c this: moment of mu:imal duinteg.ratton (a prt.do1ni· nJ.nt srmbol (\f this ut1n-c:h.M>tic -1n 'iaaskn1 ta>'n0.$i.td - ,utc is ashes). P'raJap.u1 ·~ n:ma1n• are rctun\ed to bii ~lothc:rs, or1cn the Walcl'S, tO be telborn und •«Oi:'IStructed For ClUlmpks. P1a j,1.p.i1i's C\.-il parts &fc oUcred 10 'llfrb in lhe RU) ii.I O>oi«t1tJon a.nd !"locro 1n u ant hill, 1 ronta:LoC-r t111 hKb otcen functMHb *' 1 ~ymboa.: ~umb l)UI Qf\\obtch hfe ~ rcbetrn (Refcr~n~c• in Hcc$terman. ICJ'.'\7)

A(lcr the athc8 h3\'e been tc1nov~d lro1n the fh>c·pan in 1llc f'\(11lelyania n~. lbc:'>· ••e plaoed 1n 1 big and th10~-n inlO Ille "'Oller A-~ lhc} 00.t. I &mall pOc:luJft • tllc-• bia4-t and pul inlu the fire·pan. ""htch 1eprt~nts Ap:ni'~ body. The 1t~1.c.xpl4'1M thii proccdt.1rc "·ith o lllOJ)': TI1c i:,udt rc:nec1ed c'n what Ill do \\ollh 1hc a.\he$ 'lf we mak~ these a•hel. SQ:Ch u the) arc. pan of ow~· s.clf •-e 11.han ~ mona& bodld. noc treed fton1 e,u {pnpman); llniJ iJ "'~ ca11t It away ...,t ,_l'hlll pUl OiilMde o( A1t01

219

Prakash Dt:Slii 0114 A/fr~d Coliiru Whllt i' of r\gJ1i's nt'lturc-. (In other "''ords, to a.ss.lmil.ntc 1hc ·dead' ashes wouJd make lhe !>Cir mortal, "''bile 1oexeludelhem "''t>uld mnkc it inco1npletl!.) After 001uidering thb diJemma, they decided to put the a-shf'(. i.nto ibe wittt, 'for the water is the foundation of th~ oni-kf:se.'Thty say, ·o divine "'aters, rttei\•C lb~ ash~ and put lhcm in a soft and rrt\gr:.Jot place. l'ofatter that i$ consumed has run its course and i$ usele:S$. ' Oy bt'ing placed in the W3lel"$ the agtu.i:s c=t.n be reborn tli part of Agni's $CIL The "-'tltCl'!l flrC rhe~fore-adled Agnl's mothers. The ashes Settle in the \\'ill~!'$ >A tUr;b u.re ti.is "'Vmb; ha..,ing united with hi:t: mo1het, Agni i& $ilid to shi.ne brightJ)' again, and to have r~tumed home. He lies n1ost happily in his mother's lap. Thus renewed, he is asked toco1nc agnjn to men with food and new life: ' Willl wc:ilth rctuJ•l. O Agni. o~·erOov.• with thcull·rccding sirc111n on C\'Cty side. · Satttp(Jl/1a fJraJ11nana. VI .8.2.1·8. 1

It is interesting that Prajnputi"s dis.integration b a~$(lci.ated with u goddess, Nimi (whOISC name me-ans Occa)' ot Dioolution).1>1ncc it is through another rcnlinine power (the Waters. bral1n1on, etc.) that he ls rcbon,. But the key rac11s 1hoit it is his 'e\'ll' \lo'btcb is reborn .:a.s no\ltlsh1nen1. This then1ecan besummnrizcd in the rubric, 'papm11n bcconlC$ :,·ri', 'e\ld bec:o1nes au51>iciousnt'$S.• The sauie dk:me is round in contemporary South India, where the (unction of transforniing dca1h in10 nurturant substance is a propert)' or WQJt~n

(Reyuol whole and integrated ('matched·) state or being. in \\1h.ich be lac.ks specific form (is 'unmorkcd') to n state of being n111.nifei;t in m3ny spedflc forms ('n1arlccd' and 'mixed') but di$articulated ('uomatclh~d'); tbenc:c be tJavels b3c.k again 10 his unmatked, unmixed a nd matched begin· nings. One may compare the similarly mobile god Visnu, who altcmtttes along u strujght path bct...,-cen a latent, 11keping (un· mixed. matched) state during dark periods or CQSnliC dissolution und an uc1ive, reproduc1i\•e wakefulness d'Uring thnes of his bright

2iJ()

S~lj11ood

in ContUt

cosmtc marufes1a1ion, when he mixes wi1h and marks lh~ world 10 restore il to ao appropria1ely marked and matched sll~te of urJ..:r. lnsun1mary, Prajapati'swholencuis restored, and bis disintegra· t iOR fC\'CrSed b)' the fo!IO\liin,g SITatcgics:

1 Prajapati cau or otherwise.assimilates hi1ott~p-1in3, l~\ls recon· tlituting hioisclf by rciotegrnting hii dispers.cd !.-ubstance. 2 J>raj11f»lti is eaten by his son. and (>Articipates in bis son's "'holeness. 1'bls str•1¢.gy is nearl)' the same IL~ the fin>l. l>u1 in\·olves ll reversal of fatber~n statu:s. 3 Prujapatl g1:ts lid or bis bad parts, v.· hich represelU his d.isinleg.tation and ldentifies wilb the good or cohesive $ide. 4 After railing aparl, Ptajapad's p.111$ a.re rcintroduc:cd lnto his mothet•s \\'Omb, and be. is reborn w'holc. One can v;ew of 1hcse anempts to redeem Prajapati in tcnns -Of seJ(.-environmt:nl 'approprialcness: or in the lnnguacti!iccr, Prajaj»\ti'$ human rcpreseotati\'C, 'is boro io10 a world be hall 1n:)de hims"l!.' '01is: is one signifien11ce of the doctrine of kar1na (lhal 11ctions a lv.·ays have rcsul15) for the actor's se:lfhood; th1oug.h his sclf·sacriticial activity (If 01aking a 'WOrkl of crtaturcs from his own su~ance 1he world ii 1nade appropn'm1 10 his oohcsi,·e selfhood, rather than dcstrucli'-e of it.

TI1c initiant (Diksit.a) poUBOOl bis own self io10 the fiJcpan , the won1b. As be bce()mc.s inilinted, h.e mnl>es a world for himself, and wti.en he ha<; become fully lnitiated, he i.s born inlt'I that \l.1Jrtd.

Sawpat,1011JJroJ11nana , Vl.2.2.V. It i:s llOt di({kuh to sec the issue of self-cnvttonmt•)t appropriate· ncs.c; opcrad.ng in each o( tJ1e four s1n1cgics nolcd above. Pra japa· li's ca.ting o( bis offspring nnd being ea1en by his son A$ni both united PTitj11patl with what he has produced out of himself. But PTajapatl's offspring al~ oonsti1utc the eoviJ01lment in which he exists~ lb.e v.·hule world. ·Ille underlying idea appnrentlyiii tha1 ntiU'.I produc.es his "'orld b)' 1earing hilnself ap.art. 'l'hat is, the sense a whole sci( is auached b)' cnviroomenuil cxpcrienoes which puJI apart it'i whotel'l¢S$, demanding responk!! (ro1n the parts 01l1y (d.

or

281

~

Prakri.s.11 De:1ai and Alfred Collin.r K~1 , 1976). FQr oxnmple, 1he neceS$h)' to use 1he visual faculty to 'iCCObjc;:cb in tbc environmc:nl mus1 have seemed tc.'J separote visKin from the Whole self. lnd"-etl. lhe l ndi_a n theory of p.:fCCption implicit bc:re (and explicit elsewhere) rt 1hnt the '~-arid o utside is created through being expcricm'Cd. Ptr<.:1;:plioc' is the procciss by which un 'cn\•i.ronment' i$ cccatcd. Thu!!i. lhC f11e;ul1)' of sighl. and

th(' eye, ptcc:cdc n.nd ca~ visu.11()i)jccts; for e x.ample, Prajapati's sight crt"at~ 1t1e 11un. 1bi:!. mc3n ~. hov.'Cvcr, that the destructive, i1K'Ohesi1ten<:M-1ending n:iture of tbe i:nviton1nc:nt can be redeemed through the coherc:nct- of the sc1f from "''hich 1hn1 environment cn1tu\a1cd; thus Prajapati ·e~ 1s' hili ofl'psring, or~ ·eaten' and given

a nc:wly rol.csive birth by hi~ mother. T he i;trategy nf identi f)'ing incoht$i''enctt..'! "" a 'bad' patt or Prajapati and c.hsp0sing of 1ha1 inooh<$ivcn-=:s:s (lttcmprs to prcvcat dis.integration from proceec.lin,g indcJinitcly. The second slratcgy 1ncntioncd abo"e, thl'lt of Prajapatl particl· p:11ing in hi~ oon·s new cohcliivencss. 1nay be s.lighdy harder to undeC$lotnd in terms of sclC-en1timnmcnt appropria1en¢SS. sinc:e il is oolledi~-e or <;uc:ces..;i~·e cohesiveoeSii. In this solutioa lh-c ll.Clf is projected int() 1hc environmen1 , ond continues a lineage llmes thought tut~ assu1ned only 11.her dcatl.i. Ocncrationall oon,. 1.1nui1y ~ ffords a protection againM disintegrattoo: an.e's progeny are()nC':i self·objct.1S. extendiog. thc 'self• bcyonn, the Upar•il'adS d.isoovered another apprO lhe pt'Oblcm of achieving 3 ool1esive self. R.atbet dtan S"trcssingsubstancial org:inj1.ation and arl«..vh1lio11 as the notu~ ol :stlfltood, the Upani.sa
St'((Ji(>(>(] (11 l'e>M.tl

h's self orpnliataoo. nus can be undc-1stoOO as a dt"\t:lopmer!1 uf the fourth strattti) discu.1tt1cd above, that of relumini: Pn1a.pa11 10 h1i mothtfs • 'Ofnl>. A.utia11 bcc:oine" the inner. ungint1tio& lifC·!l.lp 11uni;s """"' tbo• u.. <>1 th.I liqwd ·111ccen1ral insighl ~ms 10 hnvc bc~n this: 1fonc'sstlf1s lhe50un:e or C\'t'l)th ill~ . dtCft)' and irM.'OhCfc.' llCC cdlst 10 bC fc.'111 ful, .sinet ns tht: Brltod1m111}1o1!• Uptmnildhasi1. 'ooc bcoomes the ~Ir ofck-~111·.

c""") or

"NCI""'...,,,.., 001

Jn the bci;ionu•Rthis -.•orld was only tbe self (armn11) In lhe ..h3pc ola ~Nlofl fWld•) Loot:1n1Jaround, b~ s,aw noth1nA otl:icr 1h;u1 hin•Jr He 'llJCI firs1. t ;im;' thut Jl"05l" 1ht o:tmc' ·1

·r bercforc. even no-.i.•wh"'n ;:.ddrc~~cd one llrst !lays. ' this i~ I,' and lhcn gi\·ts hiloc.bcf name BcicaPSC he., ape""" (pur..UJI} ciusbnJ before all olh< r lharip.. he ttum.\ ~II . One 1111 ho 1mo-., 1his bu1Ill! up any who "·11n1-; to be 'bc£ore' him. He b\:camc ;af/Aid btcaw he "'3$ ilooe, bul rr11li7,c-d Lhitl be need no1 fear, Stnoe ' (c.u come> from a~- · •k has no de1"Jlt htause be WU at.nnc, and ma..11: hunxlf 1ntn 1hcah:ipe u( a 1nan and v.""Omlin c rubr.On, Thu•. as the 1-11.11.~ Y3JnAvalk)'11u11cd1011\"Y· this~) isont) half of Of'lncll t11cc bUlol •$pill pu The v.lfc fills the lij)3CC ot the oth~t half. 8rlu.1dnr11nyaka Upanilod, I 4.1-3. 'l'be 1-<,.f'«nl!'l'lCe here is the IOU.rCe ot c::\er) lhUJ~ ncti~. or a tc..r of bctn1 unrc:sron
rear -

'tllb~cb

connc-cu the

parb 1n a cobnl\oc ~-

Pl'ajar11d created (n1a1ufc,'$tcd out of hin1~e lO the f11cuh ic5 of

aaion. La.ch WCftl about ps.csia~ lliO'Wn \P«ifW: l.-k (Speech s.po.._e. etc.) Dtath e-ntcn:d tMm, bu( could ooc. c-n•c-r Sre.t.h

Pruit.ash Dtsai and Alfred CoUlns V.'hich was in the middle. TI1e OLbcr tacuJtic5 toot refuge in Bre.alh and beeartf"\'fonns' or it. ll1u.s eluding Death. Drlwdtlro.nyuka Vp$.1ti.Uld. LS.21. Besides idcn1if)·ing 1hesclf\\•i1h the sou~ tind principle of unity,

Che Up1u1i$adtolten c.-OMei.::l it 'A'ith the ic:5Senceof the WQrld, or the airo ot desire. Instead ofseeking objcctsbcauscone-.•an1s rh~'" · or nced:s lo idca..lhc or be mirrurcd b)• lhcm. one seeks thew only bocaui;c they arc a part or aspect of the 'self; which is :done 1n1/y desirable. ·fbc 'self side of the sc:ff-Qbjeet :>c:eu" to have become domil)nnt~ and tO have 1otally assimilated the 'object' side. The~age Yajnuv-illk)'a 11<-Ud to his wife Maitroyi, ' Not for the

sat e or the husband is the hmband dear (to 1he wife)~ he is dear for the sake of the self.' Similarly (or aO
Ill 1hee.t1d, lhen, a pOSJtion of absolute monism is reached, where th<:rc is no otbc:r. No more is the hw;band 'dc::af only because of the self: he like everything, 'has ber;o111~ the sel.f. · 8rhadarw1yaka Upaniuul, U.4. 14.

DISCUSSION OF THE PRAJAPATVATMANIMATERIAL The Co$n1ic man image in the Vedic Purusa and frajapati cepre:;en1 ~an an empt 10 bring about a unit of man and \\'Otld in fanli\1')'. It is a gt*J.l'.ldiose ftin1.uy wbieb ;;.lict:Cll\l"S v.·ith WOfneuts 0£ disiUusiou ;uid desp."lir. The l;ilcr Upanis:hodic a1n1J111 doctrine just discussed

seenu; in a 'Vt'ay c\o-en more grandiose. !iinee sclf11ood, in cbii; t))eory, is freed from all the \'icis.<;itudtA of life in the hu1uan :utd oos.mii;: v.·e>1lds ~.od offers a kind o{ woceptu.U solu1ioo le> 1he ele1nal (,)'de of grandiolihy and
5'/fhood "' """"" cobc$lon to 1hc ttnennvicyof &chcrhood and mapaient ftapnct1ta· non, 1actks tuKI lObe devised to ovt".rcomc the threat. The prLm.uy w~y th~ wa~

tC<.'Ofl\plished, a.~ rccor~J in Lhe UpanUad1, And to earlier, i.nvot\·cd a rrarcn1on in flnta..'l)' to the u:iuthcr. or 1norc cuctly 10 the st1.1t oteinpothlC merp:1' •1th her. w lhat cht rr11ment.Cd self c·~~c•') wuld be: renewed llnd rebom v.bu_k!. 01<1du.1IJI)', 1hc pur~nt hair (If thi~ primitive u11fl)I' btt11me n_tso ktc:nlil'ied wilh lhe self •nd ,,.,as rctcmd to 1$ lhc 'jmmonat' part al Pra1apa.ti. or hil "aftimanjfa.ted" part. This fNlcf'Wll sawt' of dw rtl/WIS rtlncc rpreted in a coocept or tht Sl'if41 MH'rct.lhe hlatonc"' ~tueccdc:nt of lhis MO\'C 111 lbe 'lhtcc-tourthl' ol lhe Cosmic "1nn wh_lch is "immon.aJ lite in hca,·m' i.n 1h4:-: Purusas:ukta or the Rig Veda (.X.'°). Jt tJ•tdoocpanof tbcseUp\t: binhto1hc Othttpan The ~If becamt the ong:in of C'o'<:rythlng in an tbM>lute den1.t.I of dependency on anythin1. lncludini "'own souree. Ltke Kipling's l
!iclr. The situadon has the 1t.1>pearanrc or Kohui'11 •vertical i p1it,' a dc•c•w'--c i:11.nce of dtn)ing need tur 1. guuiDC other lhtCtugh u~U$ merger ••lb lbe pareftl 1map: (S« 1he di3pw. ia Kvhut. 19'n, p :z 13.) TM pciwn cbJ11-;tetcriud by • ...c.nical Jpllt is nrttn O\·trtly pandJ~c:. lt;olated 111ul ~lf·su fficlc.nt. For Kohut there is an urMkri)ing molhtr imaie which COl\flfms b1s acn~ of .uperiority ptru'totded Wt the pc:non docs 001 try to~ lftr the Sacrificer rese1nbloe:i the oc>nurtuall)' t'1D1tting nardt~tic 11t.lf~ Oft the other 111de of the "\t'"ttkal split. ea::ordinc to Kohut, u • ~ of bcin& empt)" and ine[(l!Cti.vc. depressed ttnd isolated, i.e.. cut o{f from the affirming 1nt1c.m 3J mlm>r. Th~ petwn pro urrlC:\ ton mcrg~r QO ono a.Id_, of I.he ,;pbt wbicb he '·rc11.Uy' knows (on the other liiic) to be di~uirous1)' absent Pf•j..pan-sst~t.c of chaooc dl$&fft)' after aealion. "'bco ~ becomes duarticulnted and •emptaed our; ttscmbks the de· prc;sed, empt)' ~Ide or Kobuft vct11ca1 spht~ in PrnjapaLl'• Ufe it l>c11odicaJly 1.ltcmalel \\"'itb lhe MtllC o[ inOa•c.d gteatne_u. find """1pktioo \\'hen the Upanhad::I tnuriorutd the- source of good& 1• tM ahM>lutc atman which put an end 10 •hcrnatie>n, 1he:re must m.Ye

Pr,l.ka.fh Desai and Alfred Colli1tS been a sense ol tremendous psychK victory. (1\Oo'OUlse
CONCLUSION

The Indian vision of pcr'$0nality i~ one th.a t finch lh< self c1nbedded essentially in a \.\'Orld or self·obj¢C18, h>'4 ards whkh h n1tm con• 51anll)' and eagerly, bu1 which it inttojcc1s ar incorporates when necess.-t)' 10 p1"1:~rvic: a lhreateued5ensc of self·\lo'Orkl mulua.lity. A1 limes in Indian thought much of wh111 modem "'cslern psycholQJY th.ii,ks of as the 'inner' pcrson:ility titJ"Ul.."luri: is ooncci,·cd as out!i.idc lhe i;clf. \\'hilc at other tiincs niort. or less of the •outer' 'o\'Otld is understood as within lbe stU. •Josid.:' and 'outalde' 11re (le(incd i.n 1

1crm\Qf app:ropri:ite.ness, n-01 physical ('·reaJ') loca1ioo. 11ial whll'·h is 1rl(lte idike, ho1nog:i:nic:ous ur fi tting ts trtiated as nearer while lh..at \.\ hich is less homogrncous nnd fitting nnd snore unt1ke is seen as far1her out. Meissne r'!> undc rsut0di1)g of introjects ag 'inoor' stnic-. tun:s which arc (ch nsparliallyou1side is parallel to the tndia.o view. as is his treat1ne1n o( ptojeetioc~ that are in a wa)' fell 10 be within, When thi-s proces!lflf.sel(•'\\'Orld adjustment fail$, t bc n.ovc towards an obj~c:tJess uuJer aunan may occur. at a pbil()6(lpbical level, and " 'uious. fonns oi' split·IC\'cl consciou$ncss \\t ao experiential level. W<"Stern. and in particular elassi¢al psythoanalytic idenl~ of stable, permonent individu.;1li1y ba$Cd on identificatio1l$ wilh ~ud respee1 fl)r 1be uii~ller.tbility o{ the envimnmcn1are toceign to lhc Tndia1~ rerspcx.'tive. The lndtan personality and 'vorld a«' 1norc Uuid. blemUng together at times, whjJe at oLhtt Limes (or C\'Cn at the same time) .un interior core (If •he $(.I f~ held aloof with practie«I detac:hcncnL. We are tempted lO sa)' tJlat the two L-uhures pro\lide.

context-. ia which particular myths of tbesclf are 1>urtued. \Vea.tern p~)'~'i1<.>logy h11s idealR.cd a myth of uu1onomy, whereas India n 1hought Klealim ihc myth of merger. \Vhilc 1he "t111a1t ideal seenls to contradict this, offering an itn:.ge of absolute isolatiQn an.d rcnuQciation of the .,1:orld, we ba,·c seen that the aanan, 100, i:au

286

Seljhood i11 co111c:P only be undcrst0<>d u1 the COOICJCL of the ahn1nkura-5e:ll and its 'l.'arioUb wtib of appropriateness and cohcs1vcncss; h' panicular in its failures 10 1nain1ain these.

NOTES M Hnoly and (l.fU:ie)(I (1916) p()int out, tbe C'(ptts.sion .-00

'l 3

4

5

6

C()noe1)t

d.:-rive !roo.1 tbe l nJ~u 1tt)"S.tic Sri R11mnkri<1hn11., about whom R()l\and wtul(' e.i1toeosi,a: C011ln11, 1968-71. /\$ C3rl l\ogers (1961) ~i mil:uly wtit~. ooe's i;etr.tccting becomes 000S11airaed by 'CU1•ditions Q( worlh' Ill.id down b)• (!(hell, 111td one mny get Socked into 11.D unoonrdously ncciertcd 1ok at vari11.ncw: \\1th lltll:''ii ·real self ' Optirn;t.lly, 1hc l ·ness \1.'iJI bet.Ville ~u1bly idca1ified "'i th a fairly broad sen!>< or f::unily and ooc1.1p;ii1iou~1 Identity, and wifl be fte ,il)let-nougb to joclutk other aspcas of l •feelmi "''hen required by 11 cJwin~iug cDviron111en1 of lhc dt:'-t.loproontal prot:e$.S. These tncludc. ' idcali'Ling sel1-<>1>J~ct 1tlatioru.11i~, where Lbc citild'$ ~nre of&<:lf panldpa.t~sio lbc itll!:llliud in\11~ of,be pnrcn1, a.Ddwhlich dcveJop into ifltl!llt:l.I idcals.1u1d mirrnnngself-abjoct relatio11,1: where th!!- d!Ud's wiq nf 11elf d ntagnificd 8.00 rcfk<:ted bact to itscU by thi: p;trcnt; these bcoornc ambilioos (Koh111. L971). Brfl«d:.iran)aka Up411tisud i..S.17. Freud '~ 1914 diJOCUs.sion ('I n:t.n:U."'1.'m is ttlt"Y,anl here.

REFERENCES A.itartyn Art1n)'llk•t. i ·cxt ilnd Tr.in>litllon: A_B. ~ith, «L utld Lt . (1909).

Oxffird:

~rotd Unlvenh~

P«SS·

ArhorV#~edu To;:xt: R. Rolh 11nd W.D. \\fhitricy. eds. Atl1nr~·~da Snm.lu·

tu. Bonn Fi:•d. Oummkrs Vcrt:ti' Tru.111Slbtio11: \V.0. \\'hitncy. At}uu'\'QVt'~ .iWJt11h1111. Cambridg~:

Lr. ,

Rarvtird Utu~'t'ni1y Press.

Rh.a1;avttd GirQ. Text aad Translation; J.A.IJ. V:1n8u11ca1en. ed. a.nd tr., Tht' 8h«gtA\"adgit1t in th« MahubJu1ru1a (1981). C'hic!l!-O 3fld LonOOn: Univc:rt.ily of Ch~gn P1e1111. B 1<110c~u. ,.,,1. (1%5). 'Ahi11nfeara. 1he eg.o principle i.n 1bc V p:u'lnads: Cm1tribJ,1tiQ/T1,., Indian Sccioi.>!lY, S. 62-84. Rrllildo1J'(JJf)'Qk.Q t.i{J()t1k.ad. Tt:tl: S. Radhnkmhnitn, 1he Prltcdpol l.i'ponf.

.wd.f (1969) l.ondnn: AUen. & Un"\\in Trnns1a1!00; R.E. Hume. tr.• ·r1ic

7?11rt«n 1>rb1t1/t1d U1u~crsit)' Prc'{C Carstain, (i.>.t. ( 1957). Th~ Twi•llorn: A Sr11dyofn Ctnnn11111ity<1f Hft/t

Cru1t /JlnJw. Oloonlilll:IOn: lndi.ana Univet!!lty Press.

" Prakash De5f,; a11d Al/rtd Colli1u Collin~. A~976). 1'1itt OrigiJtS of 1he 8ruh1na11-King RehtlitNIS#lip in bufi411 Socini 771ouslu. Ph.D. Disscr1Mion. Uni\~rshy of Tell.ti~ at

Austin.

Dn~pltl. S.N. ( 19f'5). A lfi~tqryofIndian l'hilrnophy, "~I. I. Oambrid~ \..runhrl
l)cs:i.i, P. (1!>7l). ' \\1eRcm Stienoe o f P$)'Chiatry and tbe Hindu 't.tind .' /,,din Digc.rt I, ~ Desai, P. ( 19ro). ' f'syclloanal)"S.._t and tl1c l·lindu ~)die .' h~r prcscntcd

at ihc Jns1hu1e fo1 l~S)'tbonooly~i ,, Ch!Cll"°' 22 Or.tobcr.

~ai .

P. :tnd ~ !ho, O. (1~0) . ' llMlion immigrao1s in A~rira: Some ..,rPiJcboloJ?cal ~pC;ation,' In The N..-w Ethics: ..t.sku1 l1tdia "1in1hr U11i1t!d Sui1~s. P. S;..ran 11.Jl.d E. Eat1~, ed.$•• i"lew Y1.>dt:

C\lltu1:1I a~cli;

Praeger.

Dumonl. L. (l970). Hon10 Hl~t.1rchit.1a~ ~ Co.-.u.~1·st~m and il,v lnipllco· t fCHu . Locido11: \Vctdt-llfeld & Ni...'Ob:u.ii. EnW1i, (L il. ( I ~). ldr,,titr Y1Juth and CriJi$.• New York: W.V.'.

Ncnton. Erik.t;c)o, e. 1l. (1981}. 'The Galilean sayings and the scnlie- of "I: · · l"hr'! Y"he Rf'1•k••. 70. 321-Q Fenicbd, 0. (1945). 'Thi P1ydloona(,1k 'l'lra>rJ• of i'IJl'.11rm.iJi. New York:

W.W. Nonon. Frtltd. S. ( 19!4). 'On Nau:i$,bm: ~n 1ntroduction.' S.£. 14. 69. F1cud, S. ( 191S). ' hl)tloc~ and ttici:r ,;cMitud. S. ( 1917). •f1,.fU11ming ;ind ,.kJ1.1ocbob1J.' S.E. 14, 239. Freud. S ( 1930). 'Civilization and ils Oisoon tCt'l l~.' S.e. 11, 59. Gedo. I . (1.979). Btyond lnJ.e•prttailQ11. New York: l nh~;n1.1 1ion:al Unh·~J'Si· lies Pf~. Gonda,J. ( 1975). Valk L 1J!!tatlrl"I! (San1lu'ta$ttnd H1aJi1,,.-,11af) , Wc::isbaden: J-lilfl'QS..
Hillol)'. C.J.1. uud M;il>'WO, J. (l9i6). A critic-al cxamin:ition or the new na.rcm.i$ttt. J111
Unl\>trsitics l'reils. J.C. ( 19,7). Thr;

He~term:u1.

An~t /IUIJ'un Royal Comcooatil)n, The I b11tue: ,\{41u1,n1. I ICC$tcrman, J.<~ (l%l). 'Vnir)·~ and S11crif:icc ' /11d~Jrun1'in Journal, 6, 1-3? , Hc™cnnllll. J.C. (1964). '8rahma.t1, Rhual :ind Rt:nooncicr. • Wit;nt" Z~lt· selrrl/1 fur K1.111de- Sud im.I 0Jt..atlms, 8. 1-21. I luLin, t.1. (1918). L,,e f'~i()"d~ L' Egoda1u /,1 r rnsN /nth'11M Cl'-'~ll/llf'.' l,(J NQtiqn d'.-tJiamk4Jro. Paris· Edhions de Boccard Jndea, R . 11.Dd ~{11.rtioc1, M. ( 1977). 'Toward an E.ttino-sociolog) af SOu Ih Mi:aa caste S)'$tcms: In K.A. Dallkt. ed.. Thi'- Ntw ~V-md; Chmtgirlt lde-nltlii'J iri St.>u'h Ar1'a. 1'be Hague: (\,louton. J ame!I, W. (19$'.J). 11st' /'ril1cipk.v ()f P.frd1olo11. New York: I foh. R.lnchar1 & \\'in.sct.m. Kakv.S. (l9~). •Ob11:naliYC1S on the ··n1er • .'Wzmik$u, J4, 47-S).

~'t/jh()()ti {11 COTllW

/'rwlto__.,.,..

Kabf-.S. (llJ"l) 1k 1"1'flr "''otf4.. A ~·of~ en.I S«ti?"' lntM (second tdirioo>. De.lb: 0..:lord U~) Pft9S. Ktlnc, P,V (1973). HhKNy uf £>h11,.,111r.mwo, \'OI. ll (ffCQnd ed.i1M>11) Poona.: Bb1111•darkat 0 1lcn1nl Rc:.cilt
Xe-Albert. 0. ( 1975). am-•,g~ CortdidlMI 4lld P•d.olo,;c.al NtafHtA: hulsllo fr01n tltt ll{Jtory n11d An1hropoJ.()R>' of Rtl(Jimu· Uni· \CneiJ Part· l,.:nt\'cr1dty ot PeO{l!))i\ ..tlll l>res5 Kolii•I, II (1911). 11v A.W)..0 of lM Jtdf ~ York: lllk'"fM~ Urir.c™t> PntM Kohut . H. (11/17) ~ Reth1fBOOl'l of1he Self. &klled wrillnKtol lfcinz. Kolnn. 19'i0- 1'1'18' (2 ~~lurnc11) . edited b)• P.aul I I. 0 1ni;tc1n New York:

ln1trn.atiollal Cruverdtb Pres$. ba• ~of Vedie rd.p.lcl. Hu.-,

K"1rtr. F~BJ. (19'S).

·n.:

of

Rfili(iJfu-, lJ, 107·'20 Lai;ombe. Oli\Cf ( 1939J. L Absoiu M'iofl lit VtrJdltnrw Pnn": Gallwna.rd. Lnplanche' J. fUMI Onlulii. J.B. ( t 9n). 11tf' of Ps,ch,,.4Jfla/)'Jis. ~York :

'"'"8""&"

\\'.W. Nonon

\IMnou.~. (IA). ·HUwtit1~ dlva"s:ilJ1'"U.0.SdM.tn' ~pfcrct,cd

i.e

Tnil'UIWGOflMdJW""""I ~111t#K~ t1/ ~dttJ"lf RN/ $yml»IN: lHJw11iq, , fltllladclptlia· lnStirl•1e for Ille! Study of f-hunllJl lliWC!~ MltJriou, ~t. (l<.lbO). TM npt11 Huub; M-'MJ"' a,,d l11k,ptJ'JOIUll Jl11ldity.

u.,,.-.. ..........

~ ...aa,J andP111w-..nflua.~L\'.(l'ltA) . s.iwwv... MJ~.,.,_·,,. l'h1/~y of AQtht'lic.1 '9ooa: Uh•!Mln.rkiu Oncn1al Rue01cb

tmci-

IUlc.

t.kJ151W:"r, W .V..1 ( 19f!Ol, "1'11t: problem of Uuun:won».1u11t)Oll 4lnd ••flN!UJre ~· )""'1"'M/ of l't).-lto.Alwl)·.u. 6l. ll7n48

~lfttl11tt.

'"*"'*"""'•'

WW. ( 1981). l/ltlhnwlulflWt 111 ~0~11. ~ Y0rl: Tnti:ro1tloo.il Uo1vers.ilics Pres:J.. M\.b, f. (1956) ' L• stlln<'O de la Pl6nhudir'. Bull, lk fltol.r. F'' '"fMf"-' d'U~rn•I ~"' 4-4, S91·.fil3. r~w.art., .. Tn·d,..,,.11 Oktc:tllw:rlotr TMGdr~

°""'

s-..

(1964). Motl ie11lI ll'!e l'CJ10n 11'1 SWtb /ui• pro11:(:1 ~n~ by 1hc ACt...~RC loi.111 Commituie oe Soulh Awa, C'bica&o. ~ 1977. R._..j>n, AK (1'12) n.l..U.o.lopa.loA - ., .... 1 _ l.Jlol.',ll/1Jtt, proc«dift& of I Stnu1•1111 Snnla R.nm1n1ujtin , A K. (l(}f4()). · 1, lberc nn lnd.i"n wny or thinking'? An info1n11d ~!'·. PafX'l p1ewoled 11lhe l-1rst \\'tltktllopof 1.M ACLS.SSR(.'C' Jt•lnc Corn.a91.lcc: oe SoutJl A• ip.1I050l"td by Pt-oom i• S.Wlll Mia, P'OJC(1~

°'"""· .......-

Rcnou, L. (11/$1). 'On 16. lbc

~ .ario11 •

289

Vd. No. I, 1$1-7.

Pra*"'rJ1 Drs"{ r1.11d Alfred Collinl R~IM)u. L (195'3). Rel.11io1t1 (Jf A11Cknt l11dt1t. New York: $c:hocken.

Rel'IQ._., L. (1956).r{!!""t.r_\ Spk"fMifo du Vtdn. Pans:: Ge1Jim1J.rrl. Rcrnold~. H.B. ( I~}· '11lC :i.~pkious m~rncd -.·nman.' 1B S.S. \Vadley (ed.) TM Po11>'('f"S oj

T~il

WQrnl'h.

Rig Veda. Text: 1' Auftcclu, td., Die Hymnf11 dt.v R1g1•ttl«. (1968). Wie~ndcn ; H t11ra~O'o\'ltt. Trw~JaJNu : K.F. Ocldrw:r, tr., Dt:r Rlg·•
c

(1%1). 0 11 l}tt()m.tltg

a

PcrSQft: A 17rdQpi3t'$ Vit'W uf

PsyJ'dto111Wlyflc PT}rliolog,• of Hknurhidll 1e(Qtioru.ll.ip!. in Hirl(f11 lftdi11 Vttpublhhcd mtmu~erip1. Roy, Maoi.'sh11 ( li172). 8tngQl1 n'omtri. Chicaso: Unh'Ctsd y of Oucego l'rts!>.

Siu~p:uba Bmhm1.1.lla.TcJ1.I: A. \Vcbcr, ed .. rl1,Sa1opalM·Brahrrumabt1Jie ,ltfadJ1}'n11dma-5"klta (196.&). Vamna~i: Chowkbambll S;an~krit !ktices. Tun~latlon! J. l!.,gtcling, 11.,Smn{Nltluf·8tshm1.111a. AnwcJiltR to th¥ Text

of"'"' M4ldhj.'ll}tdi11a S<.ho()I {1966). Delhi:

~iatilal.

Scgnl. H. ( 19iS(l), Atrl1111it Kirin Not'!\' Yorll: Vitip& Prer-

Simon. B 11nd \Vc•••c-r. H (1%6). ' f\1odch o{ mio() 1111d ruenta! iUn~s io ...ne.cn1 Greco:: I. the Homcricmdics1n S;1mkh)·a {II)• Ahnmk.u111. Jourtl(d of tlrl! A111e-tk4I'* Orfr,,N.11 .~oi:kl)'. 71 \\'i.anic:otl, 0 .\\1. (1971). Piaying '1nd rta.flry, New \"ot k: BJi~ic Book.\ Zitmncr. H. (1Q.16). M;Wmtd ~)·mbolsln /Jtd1"" t\f'1nnd C1l'lllt.otl()lf, New York: O.OUi111:.e11 Fow1danon Zh11t1u·1m.nn, r. (IY1S). 'H1u-i11tmy:1; le cycle des stf..ili()1W ~t 1;e puncipe d'appt0prtn1inn • Puru1W1/111. 2. 87-105.