{"id":437,"date":"2013-07-13T01:28:01","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:28:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=437"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:28:01","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:28:01","slug":"45-sanskrit-research-vol-17-the-hour-of-god-volume-17","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/01-sabcl\/17-the-hour-of-god-volume-17\/45-sanskrit-research-vol-17-the-hour-of-god-volume-17","title":{"rendered":"-45_Sanskrit Research.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\n

\nSanskrit Research *<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n                       
\nTHE<\/font><\/b> appearance of this Anglo-Sanskrit Quarterly "devoted to research
\nwork in all fields of Indian Antiquity" is a welcome sign of the recent
\ndevelopment towards a . wider culture, a more flexible and strenuous
\nscholarship and a more original thinking which promises to lift the Indian mind
\nout of the rut of second-hand provincialism and sterile repetition of
\ncommonplaces into which the vices of its school and university education had
\nbetrayed it and to equip it for the important contribution we may expect it to
\nmake to the world’s increasing stock of knowledge. There has been a
\nconsiderable expansion in this country, both in English and the vernaculars, of
\nthat ordinary periodical literature which caters for the popular mind and
\nsupplies it with snippets of knowledge, facile information and ready but not
\nalways very valuable opinions on all sorts of subjects. But there has been
\nhitherto little or nothing corresponding to those more serious publications
\ncommon in every European country which appeal to a more limited audience but
\nsucceed in popularising within those limits a more serious and original
\nthinking and a more thorough knowledge in each branch of human enquiry.
\nAttempts have been made but, outside the field of religion and philosophy, they
\nhave usually foundered in their inception for want of adequate support; they
\nhave not found, as they would have found elsewhere, an interested circle of
\nreaders. Now, however, there ought to be a sufficient number of cultivated
\nminds interested and competent in Sanskrit scholarship and the research into
\nIndian antiquity to ensure an adequate support and an increasing usefulness
\nfor this new Quarterly.
\n   
\nThe second (October) number of the Quarterly is before me<\/p>\n

   * An Anglo-Sanskrit Quarterly, conducted by the Sanskrit Academy of India,
\nBangalore,
\nand edited by Pundit Lingeca Mahabhagawat. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n    We regret that this review comes out
\nvery belated as it had to be held over last month
\nfor want of space.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-290<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nand its sound editing and the value and interest of its. contents promise well
\nfor its future. There are especially two very solid articles, one by Mr. Tilak
\non "A Missing Verse in the Sankhya Karikas," and another by Professor
\nR.D. Ranade of the Ferguson College headed "Greek and Sanskrit: a
\nComparative Study", but there is no article without its interest and value.
\nI note that in this number all the contributors, with one exception, are either
\nfrom Maharashtra or the Madras Presidency. It is to be hoped that the editor
\nwill be able to secure the co-operation of Sanskrit scholars in the north so
\nthat this Review may become an All- India organ of Indian research.
\n   
\nMr. Tilak’s article shows all the thoroughness and acuteness which that great
\nscholar brings to his work great or small whether he is seeking for the
\noriginal home of the Aryans in the cryptic mass of the Rig-veda or restoring
\nwith his rare powers of deduction a lost verse in the Karikas. The point he
\nseeks to establish, though apparently a small one, has really a considerable
\nimportance. He points out that there is a consensus of authority for the
\nexistence of 70 verses in Ishwarakrishna’s Sankhya-Karikas, but, if we
\nexclude the last three which do not belong to the doctrinal part of the text,
\nwe have both in the Indian text and in the Chinese version only 69; at the same
\ntime he shows that both Gaudapada’s Bhashya and the commentary in the Chinese
\nversion contain a passage developing a refutation of four possible subtler
\ncauses of the world, Ishwara, Purusha, Kala and Swabhava (God, the Soul, Time
\nand Nature) rejected by the Sankhyas, a refutation which logically ought to
\nbe but is not found in the text itself. From the passage in the Bhashya he
\nseeks to re-establish the sense and even the language of the missing verse. It
\nseems to me that he has established both the fact of the missing verse and its
\nsubstance. But the interesting point is the reason assigned by him for the loss
\nof the verse; it was, he thinks, no accident, but a deliberate suppression made
\nat a time when the Sankhya philosophy was being re-explained by thinkers like
\nVijnanabhikshu in a Vedantic sense. If so, the point made sheds a very
\ninteresting light on the historic course of philosophical thought in India.
\n   
\nThe general line which that development followed arises<\/p>\n

\nPage-291<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nmore indirectly from an interesting and carefully reasoned article by Mr. Y.
\nSubbarao on the question of the originality of Shan- kara’s philosophy. Mr.
\nSubbarao seeks to establish his point that it was no new system of thought
\nwhich Shankara created, but only the restatement perhaps in a more developed
\nform of a very ancient school of Vedantic interpretation. Certainly, it cannot
\nbe supposed that Shankara invented a new philosophy out of his own brain; he
\nbelieved himself to be establishing against attack the real sense of the
\nVedantic philosophy founded on the original texts of its canon and supported by
\nthe best tradition. Nor does any greater thinker really invent a system
\nnew-born from his own intellect; what he does is to take up the material
\navailable to him in the past history of thought, to choose, select, reject; to
\npresent new light on old ideas, to develop latent suggestions, to bring into
\nprominence what was before less prominent or not so trenchant and definite, to
\ngive a fresh, striking and illuminating sense to old terms, to combine what was
\nbefore not at all or else ill combined; in doing so he creates; his philosophy,
\nthough not new in its materials, is new in the whole effect it produces and the
\nmore powerful light that in certain directions it conveys to the thinking mind.
\nThe question is whether Shankara’s system was not new in this sense and, though
\nthe previous material still subsisting is insufficient to decide the question,
\nit must, I think, be answered provisionally in the affirmative. Adwaitavada undoubtedly existed before, but it was the form Shankara gave it which made it a
\nclear, well-thought-out and powerfully trenchant philosophy and put his name at
\nthe head of Indian metaphysicians.
\n   
\nMr. Subbarao admits that it is impossible to establish an exclusive
\nAdwaitavada, much less the Mayavada, from the Veda, Upanishads, Brahmasutras or
\nthe Gita. It is impossible not because the great thinkers who gave us these
\nwritings thought confusedly or without a clear grasp of principles, but
\nbecause theirs was an entirely different method. India began with a synthetic and intuitive manner of thinking based not upon logical distinctions and
\nverbal oppositions, but upon the facts of spiritual experience and vision. In
\nsuch synthetic and intuitive philosophies truths are arranged according to the
\nplace of each<\/p>\n

\nPage-292<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nin the actual fact of things, as different laws and generalisations are
\narranged in Science, each positive in its own field and each having its proper
\nrelation to the others. The perfection of this method is to be found in the Upanishads
\nand the Gita; and that is the reason why all attempts to interpret these great
\nworks by the methods of logical debate and the rigorous exclusions dear to the
\nanalytic metaphysician always fail even in the strongest hands; they raise
\nquestions about the sense of these works which cannot be conclusively solved,
\nbut must necessarily lead to eternal debate, because the method is wrong and
\nthe original work itself never intended to cause or countenance such
\ndiscussions. Only a synthetic method of interpretation can explain a synthetic
\nand intuitive philosophy.
\n   
\nThe analytical tendency began with the gradual divisions which ended in the
\nestablishment of the six philosophical schools. Each of them claims to be
\njustified by the Veda and from its own point of view each is quite in the
\nright, for the primary data of each are there in the sacred writings. It is
\nwhere they press to exclusive conclusions and deny and refute each other that
\nthey can no longer. truly claim Vedic authority. Even the Buddhists could, if
\nthey had chosen, have based themselves on the Veda, for there are passages
\nwhich, if taken by themselves, seem to deny the Atman and attribute all to
\nKarma or to assert the Non- Existent as the source of things. The perfect
\nresort to the analytical method came later; it was employed with great effect though often rather naively by the Buddhists, but it was Shankara who applied
\nrigorously the analytical method of the intellectual reason in all its
\ntrenchant clearness and force to metaphysics. Hence the greatness of his
\nposition in the history of Indian thought. From his time forward Indian
\nmetaphysics was bound to the wheels of the analytical and intellectual mind.
\nStill, it is to be noted that while the philosophers thus split the catholicity
\nof .the ancient Truth into warring schools, the general Indian mind was always
\noverpoweringly attracted by the synthetical tendency. The Gita seems to be in
\npart the expression of such a synthetic reaction, the Puranas show constantly
\nthe same tendency and even into the philosophical schools it made its entry.<\/p>\n

\nPage-293<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

         Prof. Ranade’s article on Greek and Sanskrit carries us into another field,
\nthat of Comparative Philology. His object is in a brief scope to establish the
\nidentical origin of Greek and Sanskrit in that which is most essential in the
\ngrowth of a language, its grammatical forms and syntactical peculiarities. He
\nhas had to allow himself only a very small space for so large and important a
\nsubject, but within these narrow limits he has done his work with great
\nthoroughness and, subject to a few minor reservations, with a minute accuracy.
\nIt is to be regretted that by printing the Greek words in their proper
\ncharacter instead of in Roman type Mr. Ranade has made this interesting essay
\nunintelligible to all but a very few Indian readers. He lays down the principle
\nthat the words of each language should be printed in its own type and that
\nanyone who wishes to study Comparative Philology must take the trouble to
\nfamiliarise himself with the original alphabets. This is a counsel of
\nperfection which is not practicable in India, nor indeed on any large scale in
\nEurope either. If for instance a scholar were dealing with the philology of the
\nAryan languages and had to cite largely verbal forms both from the European
\ntongues and from Sanskrit and its Indian descendants he would be compelled on
\nthis principle to require at least nine different types from the Press to which
\nhe entrusted his work. No Press would be able to meet the demand and very few
\neven of his learned readers but would be baftled by the variety. Mr. Ranade
\nhimself gives us German words and a German sentence, but not in the Gothic
\ncharacter which alphabetical purism would demand.
\n   
\nThere are three or four statements in the article to which objection can be
\ntaken and, since in philplogy even the smallest details are of importance, the
\nlearned writer will not object to my pointing them out with some emphasis; in
\none case at least he has fallen into a serious error by correcting which he may
\nadd an . interesting and not unimportant subsection to his array of grammatical
\nand syntactical identities between the two languages. I do not understand in the
\nfirst place what is meant by the statement that "in
\nGreek no difference is made between the dentals and the linguals and they are
\nfused together". If it is meant that the Greek language possessed both
\ndental and lingual sounds<\/p>\n

\nPage-294<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

but expressed them by the same characters, I do not think this can be correct.
\nThe distribution of dentals and linguals in the various languages is one of the
\nmost curious phenomena in the history of linguistic phonetics and deserves a
\ncloser inquiry than has been accorded to it. The Latin and Celtic languages
\nreject the lingual and use only the dental; English on the other hand prefers
\nthe linguals, though it uses occasionally the dental t, th <\/i>and d, <\/i>all
\nof which it represents by the, <\/i>as in with, thin, though, <\/i>– a
\ndesperately clumsy device thoroughly in keeping with the chaotic wildness of
\nEnglish orthography. Everyone in India knows the difficulty an Englishman finds
\nin pronouncing the Indian dentals; he turns them resolutely into linguals. On
\nthe contrary a Frenchman who has not educated himself into the right English
\npronunciation, will turn the English lingual into a dental; he will say feasth
\n<\/i>instead of feast, noth <\/i>instead of not, <\/i>and pronounce do <\/i>as
\nif it were the English though. <\/i>A similar peculiarity is one of the chief
\nfeatures of the brogue, the Irish mispronunciation of English speech; for the
\nnatural Irish tongue cannot manage the hard lingual sound in such words as Peter
\n<\/i>and shoulder, <\/i>it mollifies them into true dentals. I have noticed
\nthe same peculiarity in the pronunciation of a Spanish actress playing in
\nEnglish on a London stage; otherwise perfect, it produced a strange impression
\nby its invariable transformation of the harder English into the softer Latin
\nsound. Now Greek must certainly have belonged to the Latin-Celtic group in this
\nphonetic peculiarity; otherwise the difference would have been too striking to
\nescape the sensitive ear of the ancient poets and scholars. It seems to me
\ntherefore that in the comparative scheme of the two alphabets the Sanskrit
\nlinguals should be marked as absent in the Greek and, not as Mr. Ranade represents
\nthem, correspondent equally with the dentals to the Greek tau, theta, <\/i>and
\ndelta.<\/i>
\n   
\nIn the comparison of the declensions Mr. Ranade asserts that Greek feminine
\nnouns in long a <\/i>like ch\u00f4r\u00e2 <\/i>correspond in their endings to
\nSanskrit nouns of the type of bhāryā <\/i>and Greek nouns in long e <\/i>like
\nt\u00eem\u00ea <\/i>to Sanskrit nouns of the type of dāsī. <\/i>Surely this is an
\n.error. The writer has fallen into it because he was looking only at the Attic
\ndialect, but the Attic is only one<\/p>\n

\nPage-295<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nvariation of the Greek language and it is misleading to study it by itself. As
\na matter of fact, this \u00e2 <\/i>and this \u00ea <\/i>both represent the same
\noriginal sound which must have been the feminine termination in \u00e2; <\/i>only
\nthe Doric dialect prefers always the original \u00e2, <\/i>the Ionic modifies it
\ninto \u00ea, <\/i>and the Attic standing between the Doric and the Ionic belts
\nmakes a compromise. In the Attic when this feminine \u00e2 <\/i>is preceded by a
\nvowel it remains unmodified, as also usually when it is preceded by r, <\/i>but
\nif it is preceded by a consonant it becomes \u00ea; <\/i>thus phili\u00e2, cho\u00f4r\u00e2, <\/i>but
\nt\u00eem\u00ea, k\u00eem\u00ea. <\/i>Ionic will say phili\u00ea <\/i>and not phili\u00e2; <\/i>Doric
\nt\u00eem\u00e2 <\/i>and not t\u00eem\u00ea. <\/i>This is enough to negative Mr. Ranade’s identification
\nof this Attic e <\/i>with the Sanskrit feminine \u00ee. <\/i>Certainly there are
\ncases in which Sanskrit uses this \u00ee <\/i>termination where Attic has the \u00ea,
\n<\/i>as in ca turthī <\/i>and tetart\u00ea; <\/i>but this simply means that the
\nGreek has rejected the Sanskrit deviation into the \u00ee<\/i> form and kept to the
\nmore regular a <\/i>which here too will appear in its pure form in the Doric.\u00b9<\/p>\n

   
\nIn the comparison of tenses Mr. Ranade makes the rather curious assertion that
\nthe Sanskrit Conditional does not occur in any other language except perhaps
\nGerman; but surely if the German "wurden getodet worden sein" <\/i>corresponds
\nto the Sans- krit abhavisyat, <\/i>the French conditionals e.g. auraient
\n\u00e9t\u00e9 tu\u00e9s <\/i>and the English "would have been killed" ought equally
\nto be considered as parallel syntactical constructions; they have the same
\nsense and with a slight difference the same form as the German.
\n   
\nFinally, Mr. Ranade tells us that there are no such com- pounds in Greek as in
\nSanskrit and again that there are no dvandva, karmadhāraya <\/i>and bahuvrīhi
\n<\/i>compounds in Greek, although there are verbs compounded with prepositions.
\nI am at a loss to understand how so sound a scholar can have come to make a
\nstatement so contrary. to all the facts. The power of the Greek language to
\nmake compounds is one of its most not- able characteristics and its rich though
\nnever intemperate use is one of the great beauties of the Greek poetical style.
\nWhen the Romans came into contact with Greek literature, their earlier poets
\ntried to introduce this faculty into Latin and even<\/p>\n

    \u00b9 <\/font> This phonetic variation is a general rule in the dialects and not confined to
\nthe feminine termination.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-296<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nVirgil describes the sea as velivolum, <\/i>sail-flying, i.e. with sails
\nflying over it like the wings of birds through the air, but the usage
\nwas too contrary to the Latin genius to succeed. Not only did the Greek
\ncompound prepositions with its verbs, but it compounded nouns and verbs
\ntogether. Thus from nau-archos, <\/i>ship-ruler, Le. admiral, they made nauarchein,
\n<\/i>to be an admiral; nor did they hesitate before such forms as paidopoiein,
\n<\/i>to beget children, paidotribein, <\/i>to train boys, mn\u00easikakein, <\/i>to
\nremember wrongs, neottotropheisthai, <\/i>to be brought up like the young of
\na bird. In fact with the exception of nominal dvandvas <\/i>the Greek
\nillustrates all the main varieties of the Sanskrit compound. For it is capable
\nof such compounds as pseudo-martus, <\/i>a false witness, pseudo-christos,
\n<\/i>a false Christ, chauno-polit\u00eas, <\/i>a silly city; as andro-phonos, <\/i>man-killing,
\npaid-olet\u00f4r, <\/i>a destroyer of one’s children, phusi-zoos, <\/i>life-producing,
\nkoruth-aiolos, <\/i>helmet-glan- cing, lao-kataratos, <\/i>cursed by the
\npeople, thumo-leon, <\/i>heart-lion, as anabad\u00ean <\/i>and katabad\u00ean <\/i>answering
\nto the Sanskrit avyayibhāva; <\/i>as oxu-thumos, <\/i>sharp-passioned, oxu-schoinos,
\n<\/i>having sharp reeds, polu-teknos, <\/i>having many children, io-stephanos,
\n<\/i>violet-crowned. The language indeed pullulates with compounds. It is true
\nthat they are usually composed of two members only, but compounds of three
\nmembers are found, as tris-kako-daim\u00f4n, <\/i>thrice-evil-fated and
\nAristophanes even perpetrates such forms as glischr-antilog-exepitriptos <\/i>and
\nsphragid-onuch-argo-kometes.<\/i>
\n   
\nI have dwelt on these points because they leap to the eye in the perfection
\notherwise complete of an admirable essay which, I hope, is only the first
\nsketch of a more important treatise. But with the exception of the last they
\nare minor points and do not seriously detract from the completeness of the
\nexposition. Especially new and interesting are the parallel between Greek and
\nVedic accents and the rearrangement of Greek conjugations according to the
\nSanskrit classification. The common origin of Greek and Sanskrit is apparent
\nenough, but like other philologists Mr. Ranade is far too sure of the
\nconclusion he draws from it. I believe him to be right in thinking that the
\nIndian Aryans and the Greek came from one stock, but when he says that this has
\nbeen proved beyond dispute by the discoveries of the philologist he is going
\nmuch too fast. Common origin of language<\/p>\n

\nPage-297<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

or even common language does not prove common ethnic origin. The French and
\nSpaniards are not Latins nor the Irish of Dublin and Munster Anglo-Saxons. From
\nthe ‘possible causes of linguistic similarity which the writer has given he
\nhas omitted one, conquest and cultural pressure. According to the theory of the
\nItalian ethnologist, Sergi, all the Mediterranean races of Northern Africa and
\nSouthern Europe belong to one "Mediterranean" stock ancient and
\nhighly civilised which was conquered by Aryan savages and this accounts for
\ntheir "Aryan" languages. It is the same theory that now prevails in a
\ndifferent form with regard to the Aryan conquest of a highly civilised
\nDravidian India. Philology can bring no sufficient argument to contradict it.
\n   
\nMr. Ranade deprecates the scorn of the linguistically ignorant for philology,
\nbut we must not forget that in Europe it is not the ignorant alone who feel
\nthis contempt, but the scientists, and that there is a certain justification
\nfor their contempt; this was admitted by so great a philological scholar as Renan
\nwhen in the evening of his days he had to apologise for his favourite pursuits
\nas "our petty conjectural sciences". Philology is in fact not yet a
\nscience, but rather far too largely a structure of ingenuities and plausible
\nconjectures. It set out with the hope of discovering the origin of language
\nand the scientific laws of its development, but it has failed entirely; and
\nit failed not because they are undiscoverable, – I believe the clue is there
\nlying ready to our hands in the Sanskrit language, – but because it strayed off
\nto the facile pursuit of obvious similarities and identities instead of delving
\npatiently and scrupulously, as all true Science must do, behind the outward
\nappearances of things to get back at origins and embryonic indices. And on its
\nscanty and uncertain data it began to build up enormous structures of theory
\nsuch as the common origin of Aryan-speaking races, their original habitat,
\ntheir common form of culture before separation, etc. Such facile play of an
\ningenious imagination is still the failing of the scholar and justifies to a
\ncertain extent the scorn of the patient, accurate and scrupulous physical
\nscientist for the freaks and pretentions of the "philolog".
\n   
\nNot altogether is it justified, for philology has made several interesting and
\nuseful discoveries, established a few minor genera-<\/p>\n

\nPage-298<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

lisations and, above all, substituted a sounder though not yet entirely sound
\ncritical method for the fantastic licence of the old unscientific philology
\nwhich, once it left the sure ground of grammar, was capable of anything and
\neverything however absurd or impossible. But much has to be learned and a great
\ndeal more unlearned before we can measure ourselves with the physical scientist
\nor deserve his approval. It is here that much is to be hoped from the Indian
\nintellect which is more accustomed than the European to move with a penetrating
\nsubtlety and accuracy in the things of the mind. But to justify the hope it must
\nfirst get rid on one side of its attachment to the methods of the Pundit and his
\nsubservience to traditional authority and on the other not give itself bound
\nhand and foot to the method of the European scholar or imitate too
\nfreely that swiftly leaping ingenious mind of his which gives you in a trice a
\nScythian or a Persian Buddha, identifies conclusively Murghab and Maurya,
\nMayasura and Ahura Mazda and generally constructs with magical rapidity the
\nwrong animal out of the wrong bone. We have to combine the laboriousness of the
\nPundit, the slow and patient conscientiousness of the physical scientist
\nabhorrent of a too facile conclusion and the subtlety of the psychologist in
\norder to deserve the same success in these other sciences and to lift them
\nbeyond the shifting field of conjecture.
\n    Sanskrit Research <\/i>gives us Sanskrit articles as well
\nas English with
\nthe laudable object of bringing together with a view to mutual helpfulness the
\nold and the new scholarship. Sanskrit ought still to have a future as a
\nlanguage of the learned and it will not be a good day for India when the
\nancient tongue ceases entirely to be written or spoken. But if it is to
\nsurvive, it must get rid of the curse of the heavy pedantic style contracted by
\nit in its decline with the lumbering impossible compounds and the overweight of
\nhair-splitting erudition. The Sanskrit articles in this number are learned and
\nlaborious, but they suffer heavily from this defect of style. If the contact
\nestablished by the Sanskrit Research <\/i>can teach the new scholarship the
\npatient thoroughness of the old and the old the flexibility and penetrating
\ncritical sense of the new, it will have done to both a great and muchneeded
\nservice.<\/p>\n

\nPage-299<\/font><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sanskrit Research *                           THE appearance of this Anglo-Sanskrit Quarterly "devoted to research work in all fields of Indian Antiquity" is a welcome sign…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-437","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-17-the-hour-of-god-volume-17","wpcat-9-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/437","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=437"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/437\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}