The Republiccontains: an implicit argument that slavery is unjust, a bar against Greeks having Greek slaves that allows barbarian slaves. The scholarship has failed to notice the first, that the second is a performative addressed to Greeks, and mistakes the third as explicit. Four passages are examined: a catalogue of a Greek city’s social classes ; a bar against Greek slaves, asserting the continuation of barbarian slavery ; an assertion that the Best City can exist at any time and any (...) place ; and a passage asserting the injustice of enslavement.La Républiquecomporte les trois éléments suivants : un argument implicite à l’effet que l’esclavage est injuste, une interdiction pour les Grecs de posséder des esclaves grecs, qui admet cependant la possession d’esclaves barbares. Les commentateurs n’ont pas décelé le premier, ni remarqué que le second est un performatif adressé aux Grecs; ils ont tenu, à tort, le troisième pour explicite. J’examine ici quatre passages : un catalogue des classes sociales dans la cité grecque ; l’interdit pesant sur l’esclavage des Grecs accompagné du maintien de l’esclavage des barbares ; l’affirmation que la cité idéale est possible partout et en tout temps ; et l’affirmation que l’esclavage est injuste. (shrink)

“Could we contrive one noble lie?” implies there is one noble lie. The Autochthony Claim and the Hierarchical Claim follow. The article argues the former is the “one” noble lie. It argues the claims are both normative and descriptive propositions; both descriptively true about worldly polities in Plato’s day and historically. While the Hierarchical Claim is normatively true of the Best City, the Autochthony Claim is normatively false. The article offers a tentative explanation why jointly they comprise a foundational myth (...) of political life. (shrink)

“Could we contrive one noble lie?” implies there is one noble lie (Republic 414b). The Autochthony Claim (asserting the Best City’s citizens are equally brothers) and the Hierarchical Claim (asserting brother justifiably rules over brother) follow. The article argues the former is the “one” noble lie. It argues the claims are both normative and descriptive propositions; both descriptively true about worldly polities in Plato’s day and historically. While the Hierarchical Claim is normatively true of the Best City, the Autochthony Claim (...) is normatively false. The article offers a tentative explanation why jointly they comprise a foundational myth of political life. (shrink)

It is an hazardous undertaking to arrange the meanings of an ancient Indian term like brahman in such a manner that a definite process of evolution may be read off from the very arrangement, because all that is connected with such power-concepts or represents them can in principle bear the same name and, further, because many meanings given in our dictionaries owe their existence only to the fact that our languages are not able to express the Indian concept by one (...) word. Unlike other Western scholars the present author preferred to test the probability of the Indian tradition which always regarded brahman as a derivative of the root brh- « to be strong or firm, to support ». The sense of the term in various periods of Indian literature, viewed in the light of the outcome of modern research in the domain of Indian philology, comparative linguistics and the history of religions, have led him to the conviction that the Indian interpretation has not been duly considered by modern scholars. (shrink)

1. There was not the undifferentiated ‘chaos’ nor the reality of the ‘cosmos’ then (cf. KV. 10, 72, 2 ; 3) ; there was not space (cf. RV. 1, 164, 6) nor the firmament which is beyond. What moved intermittently (cf. KV. 1, 164, 31 ; see st. 2 c)? Where ? Under whose (mase, or neutr.) protection ? Was there (the primordial) water, the unfathomable, deep (cf. RV. 10, 82, 5 ; 6 etc.) ? 2. There was not death (...) (nor continuation of life) then. There was no appearance of day and night (i.e. day and night could not be distinguished). The One (cf. KV. 10, 82, 2 ; 6) breathed without wind (breath) by its own nature. Other than that there was nothing else. 3. (There) was darkness. Hidden by darkness was this universe in the beginning,indistinguishable, something waving (not „water”, cf. st. 1 d). The virtual (cf.the verb in st. 6 d ; 7 a), viz. the One, which was covered by the void, assumed individual existence by the greatness of eternal heating. 4. Desire in the beginning arose (came into being) on that (viz. on the One), which was the first seed (semen) of manas (the seat of thought, feeling, will, consciousness, and which may be identical with the One ; cf. JB. 1, 68 ; TA. 1, 23, 1). The sages after having received (it) in their hearts with the inspired thoughts of their minds, found the bond of the reality of the ‘cosmos’ in (with) the undifferentiated ‘chaos’. 5. Their cord (presumably that of the creative architect ; enabling also to connect and distinguish) was extended across (probably in order to perceive or establish duality, e.g. of heaven and earth). Was there below, was there above ? There were semenbearers, there were greatness (powers, cf. TS. 4, 3, 11, 1 ; see also BAU. 1, 4, 3 ; RV. 10, 72, 4 ; 10, 90, 5). There was own (inherent, specific) nature (power) below, there was willingness (to give oneself) above (c and d chiastically). 6. Who knows for certain ? Who will (can) declare here, whence it has arisen (it was born), whence is this creation-in-differentiation ? With the creation (emanation)-in-differentiation of this (universe) the gods are at this side (which is known to us ; i.e. they did not exist before the creation of the universe). Who then knows whence it (the created or emanated universe) has come into existence ? 7. This creation (emanation)-in-differentiation, whence it has come into existence, whether it is the result of an act of founding or establishing or not, he who surveys it in the highest firmament, he only knows (it) - or else he (also) does not know (it). (shrink)

Whereas the Upanishads contain much which is, strictly speaking, of little interest to the historian of Indian thought, the Pre-Upanishadic texts are not completely devoid of passages which are of special importance for anyone who endeavours to trace the origin and oldest form of the main texts of classical Indian philosophy. Too often the difference between Upanishads and Pre-Upanishadic literature has been exaggerated ; too often the philosophical importance of the ritualistic speculations contained in the Brahmanas has been undervalued ; (...) too often these texts have been neglected by the compilers of handbooks. One of those points which have not always received due attention concerns the theoretic foundation of the belief in the possibility of gaining the victory over death and of the efforts to realize this ambition. One of the most important problems in which the Indians have always been interested is the relation between the One and the Many, between this phenomenal world and its source and ground. Already in the Rgveda opinions differ : it has been a divine architect who made the phenomenal world ; it has been an anonymous primeval deity who became a golden germ from which a demiurge was born ; the world has arisen from the impersonal One who desired to create the world, etc. In the course of time these creators and ideas of the original One fused into the great figure of Prajapati, „the Lord of Creatures”. This God, who occupies a central position in the Brdhmawa-texts originally was what he was to remain in popular belief : the deity presiding over biological creation. In the ritualistic speculations of the authors of the Brahmanas he is the Creator, the Father of gods and anti-gods, the origin of creation. In the beginning Prajapati was alone, he was ,all this’, he was the universe in ,concentrated’ and unmanifested form. By way of emanation and self-differentiation he became the manifested universe, including the creatures. After this creative activity he is empty and exhausted, because he has ,entered the universe' or rather transformed himself into the universe. His strength, force and health can however be recovered and restored by means of rites. The world and the creatures which emanated from Prajapati were not perfect ; they were a discontinuum, disintegrated, in the power of death. In order to make life possible and to make the world habitable Prajdpati instituted rites. Prajapati is in the Brahmanas identified with the highest and most general categories ; he is the year, i.e. the complete cycle of time comprising the past and the future, totality and completeness. The year, viewed as an integral structure is the fundamental basis of all that happens. Being also the rite, the sacral act, Prajapati is on the other hand the earthly counterpart of the great cosmic drama. On these two identifications the ritualistic system of these authors is constructed. Among these authorities Sandilya. occupies a prominent place. The mundane events oscillating between the poles of birth and death, of genesis and decay, rites are needed to reintegrate what has become decomposed. They are however also to restore the original unity and totality, to co-ordinate the non-co-ordinated phenomena, to reconstruct Prajapati, to restore his original oneness. The rites reduce, temporarily it is true and with regard to the individual who has them performed, the phenomenal multiplicity to a reintegrated totality, in which the diversity of Prajapati's emanation has been destroyed, and the original unity and oneness has been restored. This theory underlies the structure of the great Fire-altar , by which the sacrificer identifies himself with Prajapati whose original unity is restored. By performing this elaborate ritual the personality of the sacrificer was transformed into a new and divine existence, which was no longer subject to the imperfections proper to this world. That is to say : the sacrificer acquires ,immortality' , he transcends the limits of phenomenal time, he becomes sarva, i.e. safe-andsound, whole. Prajapati-the year will not destroy the man who identifies himself with the totality, with Prajapati-the year, and who has acquired an insight into the meaning of this identification ; that man overcomes disintegration and discontinuity, he gains the victory over death, that is to say : he attains to a sound and complete condition. In the course of time the personal Prajapati and the impersonal Brahman are identified. In the early Upanishads the latter becomes the great fundamental principle. These works resume on the one hand ancient speculations a part of which has been preserved in the Rg- and Atharvavedas, and utilize, on the other hand, the ritualistic theories of the Brdhmawas. The tendency of their authors is however to dissociate themselves from ritualism. Emphasizing the quest for the salvation and spiritual welfare of the individual they go into the problem of the ,Soul' , that is the ,self' or the very core of the personality, which is essentially different from all phenomenal plurality. The hitman is identified with the Punira, the primeval man out of whom the universe arose. It follows that the Atrmn is also cosmic. According to Udddlaka Arum it is the subtle essence of all that exists. All the important potencies in the universe are said to be its manifestations. However, in these works . Htman and Brahman tend to fuse and the great teacher Ydjwavalkya concluded to their being identical. Ordinary men do not understand this identity, but the few who are able to arrive at this highly important insight gain the victory over the imperfections and contingencies of empirical existence. They experience the ecstatic and unanalysable condition of unity, the undifferentiated Plenum or Totality, the ,All'. They know that they are truly Brahman or Sarvam. Now, it is most important to attain to this condition, which implies the victory over death, before one is to die the worldly death. The man who dies without having escaped death will die again and again in the hereafter. Whereas the ritualists attempt to protect themselves from this much feared ,repeated death' by means of rites, especially by the construction of the Fire-altar, the teachers whose words are recorded in the early Upanishads ascribed the delivering power to the esoteric knowledge of the ,under lying theory', to the knowledge of the ritual-cosmic interrelations : the man who knows the relevant speculations will be released. This belief in the redeeming power of the rites and the ,theory' on which they are based was also of special importance with regard to the development of the Karman-doctrine. Thus ritual and spiritual identification with the One which is the Totality, the Primeval Being, the Creator, the Atman enables man by experiencing a transformation to conquer phenomenal time and death. (shrink)

Translations into a modern Western language can hardly by expected to give a correct idea of the contents of the most important dharma idea in Indian culture. « Law, moral and religious duties, rule, norm, truth etc. etc. » are, like « element, category » only aspects of a concept for which our languages have no word because it is foreign to our „ philosophy” and „Weltanschauung”. The term obviously derives from the root dharor dhr-which is also the basis of (...) verb forms expressing such ideas as « to hold, bear, preserve, maintain ; to remain in a certain condition, to continue existing, to be faithful to its nature etc. ». In the Rgveda the subject of the verb often is a divine power and the object one or more of those highly important entities in the universe which are fixed, supported, maintained, preserved, and the continuance and maintenance of which is of the utmost consequence to human life, physically, economically, socially and psychologically. It expresses the notion of stability. The substantive dharman, the Rgvedic predecessor of dharma, belongs to a group of ancient nouns ending in -men- denoting ideas of religious or „weltanschauliches” interest . In the ancient Indian texts these words stand for intuitively felt, associatively combined, emotionally determined vague ideas which in the course of time were deepened and adopted more precise and specialized meanings. The semantic relation between the noun and the above verb is often perfectly evident. The noun generally speaking expresses the idea of « a stabilizing, supporting, preserving power, a power of maintenance and stability, a faithfulness to nature or condition, to inherent qualities, to truth and reality ; the innate principle of anything in virtue of which it continues existing, is or remains what it is etc. ». The opinion pronounced by some authorities that the term originally was merely ritualistic should not be adhered to ; the ritualists knew it, of course, and applied it to those entities and phenomena in which they were interested. So did the specialists in social relations who applied the same term with the same general sense to the rules of conduct, the moral, social, and religious duties of the members of the classes in society, of the sexes and high functionaries such as the king. A thorough examination of the relevant texts however shows that it always was the same almost untranslatable central idea which was expressed by dharma, whether it related to cosmic powers or entities or to human beings. It is no correct method to suppose the term to have evolved semantically in the chronological order of the texts in which the different aspects of the general idea attracted the attention of the authors. After a discussion of the implications of dharma in the dharmajvzstras or so-called lawbooks and its intimate relations to the karman theory, some observations are made on the Purvamimamsa which, dealing with the exegesis of the Veda, made a special study of dharma, because it was considered a necessity to discover how the Vedic texts enjoin man to behave under the ever varying circumstances of mundane existence, in short to know what is the scheme of right living. The great diversity of „meanings” occurring in Pali and Sanskrit Buddhism are likewise really one and not essentially different from the above. Dharma on the one hand expresses the idea of law and norm in nature, society and human existence, the idea that under definite conditions definite consequences are, or are not, to follow. On the other hand it stands, here also, for the innate principle of anything in virtue of which it is what it is and is used in its above „social” sense. Because dharma also is the « prescribed course of action for anything which may follow a natural or normal process » it could also denote the doctrine professed by Buddha and other teachers, which was the very reason and justification for their existence. Because Buddha's doctrine was, in the eyes of his followers, truth, dharma is also equivalent to this term. In some respects the ancient Vedic « Daseinsmächte » or power-substances which were, to a certain extent, regarded as fundamental realities may be considered identical with the « realities » called dhammas in the Pali canon. Here dharma is an irreductible reality or existence which whilst existing in virtue of a fundamental law has definite results or effects. In the fully developed Mahayana philosophy the term under discussion implies that every element is a separate power or entity ; that there is no substance without its qualities, because no dharma is inherent in another dharma ; that dharmas are without duration ; that they co-operate in virtue of the basic law of the pratityasamutpada which determines the mundane process. From the philosophical point of view Buddhism is therefore a dharma-theory based on the pratityasamutpada. In modern Hinduism dharma may always be said to be a living force.. Some poets, philosophers and politicians attempted to adapt it to the exigencies of modern times : B. Ch. Chatter jee, R. Tagore, A. Ghose, S. Radhakrishnan and others. According to Radhakrishnan dharma is « to exist in accordance with the truth of things or in harmony with that truth that supports, controls and encompasses the universe » . To follow one's dharma means to be faithful to one's innate character, because dharma is truth's embodiment in life. (shrink)

This paper aims at giving a brief historical survey of the growth and development of the meaning attributed by the ancient Indians to the term maya. In studying this term we must not lose sight of the fact that it is very often used in various texts without any bearing upon the great problem of the,reality' of the phenomenal world as compared with brahman. In a large number of texts originating in pre-or non-Vedantic circles the word occurs in a great (...) variety of connotations : « power, wisdom, subtle device », and, especially, « incomprehensible power enabling its possessor to create something » ascribed to mighty beings. In the Vedic period there is no basis for any conception of the unreality of the phenomenal world in the use of the term. It does not mean « chimera, illusion, fascination, delusion, fata morgana, etc. ». It refers to a reality of an artificial or misleading character, to phenomena produced by a special ability or imagination ; it can often be translated by a locution beginning with pseudo —, or by the Engl. craft in one of its connotations. It can also mean « fraud, deception ». Philosophers often referred to these common meanings of the word in discussing the,relation' of brahman and the phenomena which essentially are brahman. Svet. Up. 4, 9 and 10 nature is called maya : in this upanûad the germs from which the various views or doctrines of the generations to come were to develop had already reached the first stage of growth without differentiating in any considerable degree. Here maya does not express the unreality of the world, but the impossibility of man's understanding its character and the power of its creator. Nor does the Bhagavadgita question the reality of the world either. Deussen and other scholars were wrong in following Sahara's school of thought which interpreted these texts from its own particular point of view. In the history of Indian thought Buddhism is of outstanding importance. According to the ancient Buddhists the world and the individuals are real, but unstable, of a comparatively insignificant,metaphysical dignity'. The Madhyamika's and Nagarjima's relativistic school prepare the way for the idealistic Vijnanavadins who, founding their ontology on the psychology of yoga, hold the view that only vijnana « mere consciousness » exists. Any pretended,reality' outside this reality is to be regarded as dependent on a wrong interpretation of our inner experiences. The,causally dependent aspect', a determined,form of reality' reflects the,absolute aspect'; the lower constructed aspect' or,wrong ideation', the sphere of the concrete phenomena, however, is to be compared to a snake the presence of which we incorrectly assume when, at dusk, we find a cable.In this connection the term maya is also used : a rope may appear in the shape of a snake, or a maya in the shape of a man and other objects which do not really exist in themselves. This maya is void, non-substantial; in the same way the, wrong or constructive ideation' which appears in the, aspect of subject and object' is called non-substantial. In the process by which the reality of consciousness is transformed into the aspect of wrong ideation maya plays an important rôle : it is the power or factor producing the differentiation of the homogeneous consciousness which results in the pseudo-existence of the phenomenal world. Gaudapada, the earliest exponent of the view of pure non-duality writing at a time when the influence of these idealistic Buddhists was predominant, availed himself of the results of their speculative endeavour. On the other hand he made sure of the sanction of the traditional brahminical circles by expounding his views in the form of an expatiation on the Mandukya. Upanmd. The universum, he holds, is like a dream, like a maya ; « it is not actually so ». All phenomenal beings are dreamlike projections of the Divine Self, which is by its very maya able to make itself assume this projected form. But in his book maya also serves to indicate that any relation at all between the world and the Ultimate cannot be rationally sustained, for this,relation' is inexplicable. Maya, inherent to brahman is the condition underlying the,Origin', the pseudo-existence of this world ; but our lack of understanding is also maya. Our empirical knowledge, which makes us believe that things come into being is would-be knowledge. Maya is the hypothesis needed to express in a formula that the diversity of the phenomenal world is neither identical with atman-brahman nor existing by itself. Sawkara likewise regards the world as,pseudo' ; but in contradistinction to Gaudapada who focusses attention on the maya formula and the character of the phenomena, he emphasizes the sole reality of brahman, avoiding any suggestion as to the world's being void, non-being or unsubstantial. This formulation holds good from the higher point of view, viz. that of the supreme reality, into which empirical knowledge cannot penetrate. For practical purposes the world may be considered as really existing. The ignorance which conceals our true character from us and makes us perceive a world which from the standpoint of the Supreme does not exist is maya. Maya hides the reality and projects a pseudo-reality. It is undefinable and inexplicable ; it is neither being nor non-being. Maya is the postulate needed to account for the phenomenon called universe, for the existence of the diversity, though it is only the One which exists. Finally the maya theories of Saktas and Visnuite schools are briefly discussed. According to the former mayasakti is the power of the Supreme to veil itself without ceasing to be what it is ; they emphasize the point of view that « this all is brahman », accusing Sankara of admitting a principle beside brahman. Ramanuja who basing himself on the conviction that Brahman in the first place is God, defends the thesis that the world and the souls are real, and attacks Sankara's maya theory ; according to this great exponent of Visnuite thought maya symbolizes the wonderful and miraculous in God's creation and creative power. (shrink)