What's your point?Coëmgenu wrote:(the relevant quotation of Max Müller)The authors of the Brāhmaṇas had so completely broken with the past, that, forgetful of the poetical character of the hymns (of the Veda) and yearning of the poets after the unknown god, they exalted the interrogative pronoun itself into a deity, and acknowledged a god Ka or Who? In the Taittirīya and in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, wherever interrogative verses occur, the author states that Ka is Prajāpati, or the lord of creatures. Nor did they stop here.
Some of the hymns in which the interrogative pronoun occured were called Kadvat, i.e. having kad or quid. But soon a new adjective was formed and not only the hymns but the sacrifices also offered to the god were called Kāya or Who-ish.
At the time of Pāṇini, this word had acquired such legitimacy as to call for a separate rule explaining its formation. The commentator here explains Ka by Brahman. After this we can hardly wonder that in the later Sanskrit literature of the Purāṇas Ka appears as a recognized god, as a supreme god, with a genealogy of his own[...]
Shooting bullets at your foot?
Aren't you just admitting that your sarcasms were just unfounded?
So Ka exists, for what I see.
And it is not the Egyptian Ka; nor the Ka of Dennis Wheatley's black art; nor Mowgly's Ka, nor whoever Ka (above cited). These are just sarcasms, carried out to veil a disturbing fact for some.
So Ka exists - the Vedic Ka.
So why should I disagree with Müller?
What does Müller says?
That in Middle Vedic Texts (Brhāmaṇas), the use of the concept Ka/Prajapati was pretty common. And that it lasted as far as the Puranic litterature - going through the Late Vedic Texts of the Upaniṣads - and obviously across Buddhism as well.
Let me remind you as well, while we are at it, the tight relationship between the Buddhist philosophy and Vedism, in this example among many, many more.
https://archive.org/stream/PrincipalUpa ... 3/mode/2up
The Atma(Atta)>>Brahma>>Prajapati/Ka(atta), is a concept that the Buddha battled against.
A concept that Buddha rejected on the rationale that the khandhas are impermanent, (hence not continual).
In other words, the Buddha said that there is no Atma>>Brahma>>Prajapati/Ka Self/self in the Dhamma, that is paṭiccasamupāda (sabbe dhammā anatta).
Obviously, such a simple and true explanation of "anatta", puts at stake the divagations of many, that have been going on for so long.
A simple truth that is so vexing and worrisome for many; that they equate it to "trolling". Pretty convenient, isn't it?
As I already said in another thread:
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f ... aw#p432952
That is to say that Buddha also went against the conservative Brahmins, that were still living in the "poetical character of the hymns (of the Veda), and yearning of the poets (Ṛśi) after the unknown god" (as Müller rightly puts it).The Buddha did act as a conservative against the view of the Upaniṣadic Brahmins; when He expounded a Dhamma (paṭiccasamupāda) with no Atta/atta. And His Dhamma was quite revolutionary, for that matter.
BUT he did also act as a revolutionary, towards the still orthodox view of the non-Upaniṣadic Brahminhood; of which he was a part, by questioning the nature of the "One" in RV. 1.164.06.
----
Moreover, can we say that there is no relationship between Kāya and Ka, when it is written in the Brāhmaṇa:
'Hail to Ka ! Hail to the Who! Hail to the Whoever!'
kāya svāhā kasmai svāhā katamasmai svāheti
ŚBr. 13.1.8.3
----
Again:
So what?The authors of the Brāhmaṇas had so completely broken with the past, that, forgetful of the poetical character of the hymns (of the Veda) and yearning of the poets after the unknown god, they exalted the interrogative pronoun itself into a deity, and acknowledged a god Ka or Who? In the Taittirīya and in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, wherever interrogative verses occur, the author states that Ka is Prajāpati, or the lord of creatures. Nor did they stop here.
Some of the hymns in which the interrogative pronoun occured were called Kadvat, i.e. having kad or quid. But soon a new adjective was formed and not only the hymns but the sacrifices also offered to the god were called Kāya or Who-ish.
At the time of Pāṇini, this word had acquired such legitimacy as to call for a separate rule explaining its formation. The commentator here explains Ka by Brahman. After this we can hardly wonder that in the later Sanskrit literature of the Purāṇas Ka appears as a recognized god, as a supreme god, with a genealogy of his own[...]
(the relevant quotation of Max Müller)
What's your point?