9058009454

REYIEWS 271

the demons. The creature only supports ihe mountain. AJso is questionable his statemcnt , wilh the refcrence to the Satapatha Brahmana (VII. 5.1.2.), that “Having rotated the pillar and churned the ocean the creator, called for this purpose Praj&pati (here), creates an offering” (p.60). This is not correct. This is, obviously, because Nakamura takes these similarities from Jean Herbert ⁹s book Shinto at the Fountain-head of Japan, as he mentions (ibid.)., It may be noted, that the lance compares with the celestial pole in the ancient Egyptian concept, though devoid of the ocean-chuming, and wilh the cosmic column of Varuna in the Rgveda (1.24.7).

In any case the informaiion collected in the book is not only varied but also very interesting. To give certain examples, we have Ajita, wearing a garment of hair (p. 143) comparcd to the Occidental Cardinal ximenes keeping his shirt of hair ready (ibid. n.5). Ln the contcxt of creation from Water, the author records a varialion from the Orphic cosmogony. Here from the primordial solidified earth and slirne, a winged dragon with the faces of a buli and lion appears. A furthcr variation of the same is the addition of huge serpcnts among othcr animal-hcads. The author takes this information from Zcller, and wants us to compare the concept with Viśvakarman (p.58, n.7). But Viśvakarman is nevcr so describcd, nor depicted. This reminds us of his remark on Rebirth (rcfcrred to earlier) and transmigration, and our commcnt that it is bctter to tracę the source of a concept or belief. Nakamura says that Pythagoras and even Plato adopted the belief of transmigration from the Orphic order and subscribcs to the view that the latter borrowcd it from the Oriental thought (p.251). The point is, which Oriental thought if not the Aryan? Should one rely on Rhys Davids (or, for that matter, on Deusscn or Oldcnbcrg and Keith)? Or, should one go to the original indcpcndently, especially when the author refers to the Rgveda at many places? Likewisc, in the context of the Orphic depiction, it is better to take inlo notę, that the motif of these hcads, with the addition of the human head and that of an eagle is seen in the vision of Ezekiel (Old Test., Ezekiel, 1.10), who was of the same period as of Pythagoras (6lh century B.C.). It may be noted that about Orphcus, the mythical fountain-head of the Orphic cosmogony, thcre is no refcrence in Homer, who llourished in the ninlh century B.C.. He is first conspicuous in the two-word fragment “famous Orphcus” of the sixlh century B.C., poci Ibycus. Going back, we have the rccord of the throne of king Soloman (tcnlh century B.C.), which showed the face of a buli and that of lion (Old Test., Kings X. 19-20), which would indicate the probabilily of its being the source of the Orphic motif. But, we may also go back to the Vedic ritual of Agnicayana (fire-piling), whcrein heads of a man, a horse, a buli and of a serpent or a goat were to be dcpositcd in the lowcst laycr of the five-laycr altar, which was symbolic of the structurino of the cosmos (Taittirfya Samhiti v.2.9., 2.5, Sat. Br. VI.2.1.1ff). T a period morę or less corresponds to that of Soloman, and,