1

29th August 2013

Bruce Duffy. Alumni Monash University Melbourne Australia.
1

Using RV 1.164.46 To Resolve The Problem Of Contradictory Statements Made
About The Gods In The !gveda.
Max Mller identified and classified under the heading of Henotheism the
phenomena in the !gveda where different gods are either described as being the
supreme god or are described as having the same divine attributes as other gods.
2

This paper looks at the possibility that these contradictory statements about the
gods could be resolved if the verses they occur in were interpreted according to
what is said in RV 1.164.46.
3
I have chosen verse 46 because it is one of the few
verses in the !gveda that appears to make a direct statement about what the poets
really had in mind when they were composing the hymns.
4
Following along the
lines of Wendy Doniger and Ralph Griffiths,
5
I translate verse 46 as essentially
saying that when the poets of the !gveda talk about gods like Indra, Mitra,
Varu"a, Agn, Yama, Mtari#van, and the like,
6
they are really talking about what
is 'one' [see Appendix 1 for a word for word breakdown of verse 46].
7
Karl F.
Geldner identifies the 'one' of verse 46 as being "The undeveloped and the
immediate precursor to the concept of Brahman in the all-one-teaching of the
Upani"ads."
8
Although placing the proviso on the 'one' of verse 46 as only being
"The undeveloped and immediate precursor..." to the Brahman of the Upani"ads,
what Geldner is basically doing in his above statement is actually linking the 'one'
of verse 46 to the Brahman of the Upani"ads. If Geldner is correct about this then
the possible implications of what verse 46 has to say would take on far greater
significance in relation to how any hymn in the !gveda, that talks about gods like
those mentioned in verse 46, should be interpreted. This is because not only
would verse 46 be saying that any reference in the !gveda to gods, like those
mentioned in verse 46, should really be seen as referring to the 'one', it would also
mean that the 'one' of verse 46 should really be seen as a god who is the precursor

1
Bruce Duffy, email: bwduffy@netspace.net.au
2
F. Max Mller, Lectures on the Origins and Growth of Religions: As Illustrated by the Religions
of India, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1878, pp. 260-271
3
Henceforth referred to as 'verse 46'; For examples of this occurring in !gveda see verses: 1.32.12
Indra supreme, 1.68.1 Agni supreme, 10.125.3 Vc supreme,
4
RV 10.114.5 makes a similar direct statement about what the poets really had in mind. (See
Mller, Lectures on the Origins and Growth of Religions, pp. 312-3)
5
Wendy Doniger, The Rig Veda, Penguin Books, London, 1981, p. 80; Ralph T.H. Griffith and
Jagdish Lal Shastri, The Hymns of the !gveda, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, [1889] 1999, p. 113.
6
I see the gods mentioned in verse 46 as not just being a reference to those particular gods named
in that verse, but being a reference to all the gods in the !gveda that belong to the same class of
god as those gods named in the verse.
7
1.164.46a ndram mitrm vru"am agnm hur
1.164.46b tho divy$ s supar" gartmn
1.164.46c kam sd vpr bahudh% vadanti
1.164.46d agnm yamm mtar#vnam hu$
8
Karl F. Geldner, Zur Kosmogonie des Rigveda: mit besonderer Bercksichtigung des Liedes 10,
129, Naibuige, N. u. Elweit ' sche veilags buchhanulung, 19u8, p. 7. "Es ist das Unentfaltete und
die unmittelbare vorstufe des Brahmanbegriffes in der All-Eins-Lehre der Upanishaden."
2
to the Brahman of the Upani"ads. That is to Brahman of the Upani"ads who the
authors of those texts proclaim to be the one and only real god of the Vedic
cosmos.
9
In order to help determine whether the statement made by verse 46 can
be used to help resolve contradictory statements made in the !gveda about the
gods, and in order to help determine the credibility of Geldner's linking of the
'one' of verse 46 to the later Brahman of the Upani"ads, this paper will present for
comparison statements from three verses of the !gveda and from three verses of
the Upani"ads.
The following statements are from three verses of the !gveda that have been
identified by Jezic Levic as making very similar claims of divine status for three
different gods, Parjanya, Savit& and Varu"a.
10

In verse 7.101.4 the poet makes the following claim about Parjanya:
"in whom all worlds/creatures have stood/rested,..."
In verse 1.35.5 the poet makes the following claim about Savit&:
"For ever the settlers and all worlds/creatures have stood/rested in the
lap of Savitar,..."
In verse 7.87.5 the poet of that verse makes the following claim about Varu"a:
"Three heavens are set down inside him,..."
It is difficult to see the above statements made about these three apparently
different gods as being anything else but contradictory. How could all the worlds
and all the creatures of the Rigvedic cosmos be contained in three different gods?
Particularly when those three gods themselves appear to be a part of and exist
within that cosmos.
However, if we interpret these above verses according to the statement made by
verse 46, and see the three different gods being referred to as primarily being
literary tools used by the poets to talk about what they know to really be just the
'one reality' (kam sad),
11
then the apparently contradictory nature of the
statements made in those three verses disappears. It disappears because,
according to what verse 46 has to say, only the 'one' same god is really being
spoken about in those three verses. A god that Geldner links to Brahman of the
Upani"ads. Which, if he is correct about this, then gives us a large body of
possible information, in the form of the Upani"ads, about the nature of Brahman.

9
B#hadra$yaka Upani"ad I.iv.6 makes the following similar statement about the
Brahman/tman being all the gods as verse 46 makes about the 'one': "When they talk of
particular gods, saying, 'Sacrifice to him,' Sacrifice to the other one,' (they are wrong, since) these
are all his projection, for he is all the gods."; See footnote 15 for instances in the Upani"ads
where Brahman/tman is either referred to as the 'one' or the 'one god' of the Vedic cosmos, or
referred to as what is real in the Vedic Cosmos;
10
Mislav Jezic The Transfer of Divine Attributes in the !ksa%hit, The Journal of Indo-
European Studies, vol. 16, 1988, p. 128.
11
See Appendix 2 for a possible reason as to why the poets felt the need to be so obscure about
referring to the 'one'.
3
Which in turn gives us a large body of possible information about the nature of
the 'one' of verse 46.
On the basis of Geldner's above claim, I made a search of some of the principal
Upani"ads in order to see if any parallel idea to the idea expressed in the above
three verses from the !gveda could be found in those texts. That search turned up
a number of verses in the Upani"ads that make similar or parallel statements
about the whole of the Vedic cosmos being contained in or resting in Brahman.
Brahman being the divine entity that those texts described as being the only one
real god of the Vedic Cosmos.
12
I have taken extracts from three of those verses
for comparison with the above three extracts from the verses of the !gveda.
Verse II.v.14 from the B#hadra$yaka Upani"ad has this to say about Brahman:
"The Self,
13
already mentioned, is the ruler of all beings, and king of
all beings. Just as all the spokes are fixed in the nave and felloe of a
chariot-wheel, so are all beings, all gods, all worlds, and all these
selves fixed in this Self."
Verse III.14.1 of the Chndogya Upani"ad has this to say about Brahman:
"All this is Brahman, is born from, dissolves in, and exists in that."
Verse II.5.8 (or II.2.8) of the Ka&ha Upani"ad has the following to say about
Brahman:
"In that rests all the worlds, and none can transcend that."
Each of the above three verses from the Upanishads support the important
Upani'adic concept that the whole of the Vedic cosmos rests in, or exists in the
one god. That god being the formless all-pervading god of the Upani"ads called
Brahman.
14
Except for one major difference this Upanishadic concept appears to
bear very strong parallels to the idea found in the above three verses from the
!gveda. The one major difference being that in the verses from the Upani"ads
everything in the Vedic cosmos is contained in just the one supreme god called
Brahman, whereas, in the above verses from the !gveda each verse has
everything in the Vedic cosmos being contained in a different god. Those gods
being Parjanya, Savit& and Varu"a. The verses from the !gveda appear to be
contradicting themselves as it would be physically impossible to have everything
in the Vedic cosmos contained in three different gods. Particularly when each one
of those gods appears to exists in and be a part of that Vedic cosmos. However,
when the three verses from the !gveda are interpreted according to the statement
made by verse 46 the apparent contradictory nature of the statements they make

12
See 'vet(vatara Upani"ad 3.7, 5.13; Chndogya Upani"ad 3.14.1; Ka&ha Upani"ad II.5.8 (or
II.2.8); B#hadra$yaka Upani"ad II.v.14;
13
I am taking the term tman used in this verse as a synonym of Brahman. See references in
footnote 17; Also see Zaehner, Hinduism, pp. 73-74, about the use of the terms tman, brahman
and puru'a to indiferently denote the changless ground of the universe.
14
I( Upani"ad 7-8
4
falls away. For we are informed in verse 46 that when the poets talk about gods
like Parjanya, Savit& and Varu"a, they are really talking about what they know to
be 'one'. That is to the 'one' of verse 46 that Geldner links to the one supreme god
of the Upani"ads called Brahman.
In relation to Geldner's claim that the 'one' of verse 46 is the precursor to the
Brahman of the Upani"ads it is of significance that in the Upani"ads there are
instances where Brahman is also referred to as the 'one god' or the 'one'
reality/truth.
15
That this is the case lends strong support for Geldner's linking of
the 'one' of verse 46 to the Brahman of the Upani"ads. Further support for
Geldner's claim about the 'one' of verse 46 is provided by the orthodox Hindu
belief that the Upani"ads teach the essential teaching of the Vedas.
16
It is
generally agreed that the subject matter of the Upani"ads is centred around
teaching the knowledge of Brahman/tman;
17
thus if that is the case, and any
credence is given to orthodox Hindu belief, then it must follow that orthodox
Hindu belief holds that the essential teaching of the Vedas is about the
Brahman/tman of the Upani"ads.
The idea of the whole Vedic cosmos being contained in and pervaded by one
supreme deity appears to be one of the major premises of the Upani'adic concept
of Brahman. It is this aspect of that concept that makes it logically possible for
Brahman to be, at the same time, both the macrocosm and the microcosm of the
Vedic cosmos.
18
That there are a number of verses in the !gveda that parallel
parts of this important aspect of the concept of Brahman, suggest that at least

15
In the following verses of the Upani"ad Brahman/tman is referred to as what is real:
B#hadra$yaka Upani"ad II.i.20 satyam, II.iii.6 satyam, II.v.12 satyam, V.xv.1 satyam;
Chndogya Upani"ad VI.1.4-6 satyam, VI.8.7 tatsatyam and tat tvam asi (repeated again in VI.9.4,
VI.11.3, VI.13.3, VI.15.3, VI.16.3) VIII.3.4 satyam; Maitr) Upani"ad VI satyam; In the following
verses of the Upani"ad Brahman or tman are referred to in terms of being the 'one' or the 'one'
god: B#hadra$yaka Upani"ad III.ix.9 eko deva, IV.iv.20 ekadh; Chndogya Upani"ad IV.3.6
deva eka$ ; 'vet(vatara Upani"ad 6.11 eko deva 5.4 eka$ sa deva$, 5.2 eka$, 1.10 deva eka$, 3.3
deva eka$, 4.11 eka$, 3. 7; Ka&ha Upani"ad V.10-13 eka$ (2.2.10-13); I( Upani"ad 7 anupas'yam
ekatvam
16
S. Rauhakiishnan, The Principlal Upanishads, Unwin & Hyman Limited, London,1953, p. 24:
The term Vedanta both correctly describes the Upani"ads as being those texts that were
composed at the end of the Vedic period, and also those texts that: represent the central aim and
meaning of the teaching of the Veda.
17
A.K. Coomaraswamy, Metaphysics, Ed. Roger Lipsey, Princeton University Press, First Edition,
Princeton, 1977, pp. 4-5. Coomaraswamy has this to say about the different genres of Vedic shruti
literature: Of these books, the Vedas are liturgical, the Brhman.as are explanatory of the
ritual, and the Upani"ad are devoted to the Brahma-doctrine or Theologia Mystica, which is taken
for granted in the liturgy and the ritual. (pp. 4-5 Metaphysics); Brian Black, The Character of the
Self in Ancient India: Priest, Kings, and Women in the Early Upani"ad, State University of New
York Press, Albany, 2007, p. 32, "[Despite]... the equivalence of tman and brahman remains the
central doctrine associated with the texts."; Patrick Olivelle, The Upani"ad: Translated from the
original Sanskrit by Patrick Olivelle, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996, p. lvi; R. D. Ranade,
A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Chowpatty, Bombay,
1968, p. 107.
18
Chndogya Upani"ad III.12.7-9 '...that space within the heart is surely all-pervading. That is the
space outside the body is the same.', III.14.2-3 'This Self within the heart is smaller than a mustard
seed and also greater than all the worlds'.
5
some, if not all, of the poets of the !gveda were aware of this aspect of that
concept.
19

Conclusion: By interpreting the above three verses from the !gveda in terms of
the statement made by verse 46 the apparent contradictory nature of the
statements made by those verses about three different gods having the whole
Vedic cosmos contained in them appears to be resolved. If this is the case then it
provides strong grounds for using the statement made by verse 46 to see if it can
help resolve the many other instances in the !gveda where contradictory
statements are made about different gods being the supreme god, or where
different gods share the same divine attributes. The fact that such contradictory
statements are made about the gods in the !gveda is in itself strong support for
seeing the statement made by verse 46 as being a very valid basis upon which to
base any interpretation of any hymn in the !gveda that talks about gods such as
Indra, Mitra, Varu"a, Agni and the like. For verse 46 is telling us that whenever
the poets talk about that class of gods they are really talking about the 'one'; that is
they are really talking about what is the one real god of the Vedic cosmos.
Geldner makes the statement made by verse 46 even more significant by claiming
there is a link between the 'one' mentioned in that verse and the Brahman of the
Upani"ads. That the Upani"ads also on occasions refer to Brahman as the "one
god" and "one reality" add weight to Geldner's linking of the 'one' of verse 46 to
that Brahman of the Upani"ads. Acting on this claim by Geldner I was able to
search the Upani"ads and find verses that talked about how everything in the
Vedic cosmos was fixed in or rested in Brahman. The existence of these verses in
the Upani"ads, that parallel the same idea in the !gveda about the whole Vedic
cosmos being fixed in or resting in the 'one' god, lends even further support for
Geldner's claim that there was a link between the 'one' of the !gveda and
Brahman of the Upani"ads. When taken together all this evidence has significant
implications in terms of Vedic studies. For it lends strong support to the
traditional orthodox Hindu belief that the Upani"ads teach the essential teaching
of the Vedas, and strongly suggests that in (gvedic times some of the composers
of the hymns, if not all the composers, were familiar with a concept that was very
akin to, or even mirrored, the Upani'adic concept of Brahman.





19
!" 2.24.11 "Be, Biahmanaspati, encompasses this all"; !" S.S.1u "all this, 0 Agni, hast thou
compasseu of thyself"; !" S.7.4 "|Agnij...hath enteieu both the woilus as if they weie single"; !"
S.S2.1u "Anu when thou |Inuiaj peivaueu eaith anu heaven"; !" S.S4.17 "All you ueities abiue in
Inuia"; !" 4.18.S "Be |Inuiaj has filleu heaven anu eaith"; !" 7.1u1.4 "In him |Paijanyaj all
living cieatuies anu the thiee heavens have theii being"; !" 1u.82.6 "that one |visvakaimanj
wheiein abiue all things existing"; !" 1u.9u.1 "on eveiy siue peivauing eaith he |Puru)a] fills a
space ten fingei wiuths wiue."
6

APPENDIX 1
1.164.46a ndram=Indra (masc. acc. sing.) mitrm=Mitra (masc. acc. sing.)
vru"am=Varu"a (masc. acc. sing.) agnm=Agni (masc. acc. sing.) hu$=they call
by name, speak of, say, speak (3rd per. perf. plur. of *ah)
1.164.46b tha$=now; likewise; next; therefore (an auspicious and inceptive
particle) divy$=divine, heavenly, celestial (masc. nom. sing.) s$=he (masc.
nom. sing. pron.) supar"a$=the mystical supernatural bird [the soul], the one with
fair wings, the strong winged one; the term is also applicable to Soma and the sun
and moon, the beautifully winged one (nom. sing. neut.) gartmn=Garutman
(nom. sing.)
20

1.164.46c kam=the one (masc. or neut. acc. sing.) st=that which really is, entity
or existence, essence; real, true (neut. sing.) vpr$=the wise inspired ones, the
sages, seers, singers, poets, theologians (masc. nom. sing.) bahudh%=in many
ways or parts or forms, variously, manifoldly (adverb) vadanti=they speak, say,
tell (3rd per. plur. act. of *vad)
1.164.46d agnm=Agni (masc. acc. sing.) yamm=Yama (masc. acc. sing.)
mtar#vnam=Matarishvan (masc. acc. sing.) hu$=they speak of, call (3rd per.
perf. plur. of *ah)













20
A.K. Coomaraswamy, Metaphysics, Ed. Roger Lipsey, Princeton University Press, First
Edition, Princeton, 1977, fn. 79 p. 140. Here he refers to the two souls in RV 1.164.20; See also
Mller, Lectures on the Origins and Growth of Religions, pp. 312-3.
7



APPENDIX 2
Why did the poets of the !gveda feel the need to talk about the 'one reality' in
such an indirect and cryptic fashion?
Although not having the space to fully explore this question in this paper,
statements made in the Upani"ads do provide a very possible answer as to why
the poets of the !gveda saw a need to employ such an indirect and obscure way of
talking about the 'one'. If Geldner is correct in his linking of the 'one' of verse 46
to Brahman of the Upani"ads then we can feel justified in looking at the
Upani"ads for answers to this question. A search of the Upani"ads reveals a
number of verses that warn Brahmins that the esoteric knowledge of Brahman is
only to be revealed to Brahmins or to particular people that the Brahmins
themselves judged as being fit to hear about such knowledge.
21
These statements
support the commonly held idea that the Upani"ads were texts that contained an
esoteric knowledge that was only to be heard by the knowledgeable elite of Vedic
society. Such statements support the idea that the !gveda and the Upani"ads
belong to two different genre of literature.
22
In contrast to the esoteric nature of
the Upani"ads the hymns of the !gveda appear to be liturgical in nature and
composed to be heard at public ceremonies attended by people from all strata of
Vedic society. It is very possible, and verse 46 tends to support the possibility,
that the poets of the !gveda were under the same type of prohibition as the
authors of Upani"ads were under. That is to only reveal knowledge about the 'one'
to an elite group of their society that they considered fit to hear about such
knowledge. Because the hymns of the !gveda appear to have been composed to
be recited at public ceremonies, the poets, if in fact they were under that same
prohibition, would have felt compelled to purposely obscure any reference to the
'one' in their hymns in order that the general public of their society would not be
exposed to that esoteric knowledge. This provides a plausible reason as to why
the poets of the !gveda felt the need to talk about the 'one' in terms of gods like
those mentioned verse 46.

21
'vet(vatara $%&'(!&) 6.22; Ka&ha Upani"ad II.7 (1.2.7); *+,')-./& $%&'(!&) III.2.6; 012,3&
$%&'(!&) XvI. 1;
22
Rauhakiishnan, 4+5 6+(3-7-%+/ 89 :+5 $%&'(!&)7 , Allen & 0nwin, Lonuon, 1924, p. 19.