REVIEWS

Jeanine Miller, The Vision of Cosmic Order in the Vedas, Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London, Boston, Melbourne and Henley, 1985, XIX (XI-XIX: Foreword
by Raimundo Panikkar) + 358 pp.

In his foreword (9 pp.) to the book under review Raimundo Panikkar gives some
advice on how to read this publication. Its main significance should lie in the
atmosphere in which the attentive reader is enwrapped. "The context is as essential
as the text. This is all the more important because, I submit, the Vedic Experience
could play a vital role in alleviating the present day human situation" (p. XI).
Moreover he observes that "this book demands to be read as we enjoy poetry"
(p. XIX). Unfortunately Panikkar abstains from giving advice to reviewers. In
the absence of criteria for poetics in the field of scholarly 'prose-poetry' and
well aware of the fact that I am deficient in the empathic approach and in concern
about the present day situation (apart from some political issues) IwiU concentrate
on the scientific contents, the more so as Panikkar also speaks about "impeccable
scholarship, sound ideas and wealth of information" (p. XI).
Indeed, Jeanine Miller provides us with a wealth of information, but I have
some doubts about the selection of the material, the method and the literature
used.
The bibliography, extensive as it is, shows some striking gaps. Most titles
are in English, some in French and the few German titles look like inevitable
items, badly reproduced in the list and obviously hardly consulted (at least barely
influencing the contents of the book),
Since the theme is the Vedic concept of .Rta one expects several references
to and discussions with Heinrich Liiders. His two books on Varu.na, one of which
extensively deals with .Rta, are included, be it only under the short title of Varuna
and with wrong dates (1951, 1953 instead of 1951 and 1959), but there is hardly
any trace of Liiders' books in the interpretation of the copiously quoted Vedic
verses. Only twice Miller refers to Liiders, once in a note (p. 299f., n. 8) which
rightly rejects his complete identification ofsatya and.rta, and once on p. 148
in a correct criticism of Liiders' thesis that cosmic .Rta should have developed from
truth regarded as the spoken word. In both cases papers by Gonda, as appears
from the notes, form the authority - I even doubt whether miss Miller did ever
read Ltiders - , but both papers (among which an article of fundamental importance

Indo-Iranian Journal 30 (1987) 107.

108 REVIEWS

to the study of controversial religious terms: 'Some notes on the study of Ancient-
Indian religious terminology', Hist. ofRel. I (1961), 243-273) are missing in
the bibliography. On the other hand we find there a great number of irrelevant
publications, some of them very old, which cannot have been the product of
systematic research. Tilak's fanciful publication on the arctic home in the Vedas
(1903) is not missing and, what is more serious, is rather elaborately quoted and
discussed in this book. V. M. Apte's attempt to explain .Rta as the zodiac, about
which Gonda, Religionen Indiens I (Stuttgart 1960), 78, n. 27 is rather short in
his verdict: "verfehlt", receives a treatment of 4 pp. (44-47). The handbook
mentioned is totally missing for that matter. Oldenberg's D/e Religion des Veda
is mentioned together with his Prolegomena (demonstrably not used) in one and
the same line as is done in auction-sale catalogues: Oldenberg, H., D/e Hymnen
des Rigveda, Berlin, Wilhelm Hertz, 1888. D/e Religion des Veda, Berlin, Wilhelm
Hertz, 1894 (reprinted 1970)'. The first book is not a translation, as the author
still may think; the second only figures in n. 36 of p. 320: 'H. Oldenberg's survey
of animal sacrifices in the .Rgveda is rather vague (D/e Religion des Veda, 1970,
pp. 354-66)' (no word about .Rta as discussed by Oldenberg).
Geldner's monumental translation of the .Rgveda is listed under the mysteriously
hybrid title: Vedische Studien: Der Rigveda, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University
Press, 1951.
Perhaps I would have been willing to condone this sort of poetical licenses,
if I should have got the impression that the author actually had consulted these
books. I am afraid that this is hardly the case. The cause of this regrettable omission
seems to be bias against Western scholars (perhaps helped by a lack of proficiency
in the relevant languages). This publication bristles with critical observations about
Western scholars and Western exegesis (often without any specification of names
and shortcomings). Sometimes Miller rightly restricts the criticism to Western
scholars of the 19th century, but one may ask whether anybody is still waiting for
this anno 1985 and whether the achievements of the Oriental scholars mentioned
in the bibliography (old and recent) justify the neglect of German scholarship.
Three scholars are especially favoured by frequent quotation: H. Lefever, who
in 1935 published a book on the Vedic idea of sin in India; Raimundo Panikkar,
who wrote The Vedic experience in 1977 and Gonda who provides eight books
written in English for the bibliography. Among the Europeans Renou is also
cherished (see p. 284), unfortunately only on account of his two English lectures
on Vedism included in his Religions ofancientlndia (1953); his Etudes V~diques
et Pdnin~ennes though figuring in the Bibliography do not modify the interpretation
of the .Rgvedasar0hit~ since Griffith's translation (1890-1892).
In a publication on the vision of the cosmic order = .Rta one expects Kuiper's
paper 'The bliss of A~a' (llJ 8, 1964, 96-129) to play an important role, since
Kuiper explains how .Rta and the sun can be the object of a visionary experience