Meltdown Bhāṣya: Verse 1.1.1 (Part 3)

Eroticism and evil: a solar legacy, The sun: sacrifice, glory, the tripartite flame, and differentiation

| Part }}{{ | Part }{ | Part {} |

Eroticism and evil: a solar legacy

Before we can complete our inquiry into Land’s philosophy, we need to understand his use of the terms desire and eroticism as well as their connection to that of God. Land (1992b) very clearly equates desire and eroticism with death, and transgression in the Bataillean fashion:

“Cowering in the shadow of its gods, humanity is the project of a definitive abrogation of expenditure, and is thus an impossibility. The humanizing project has the form of an unsustainable law. Despite the fortifications of prohibition, the impossible corrodes humanity in eroticism; the eruption of irreducible excess, which is the base unity of sexuality and death. Eroticism gnaws us as the inevitable triumph of evil (utter loss).” (p. xviii-xix)

Though Land likely refers to the human species when using the term ‘humanity’, Hindus should read this as the concept of the human which is the subject of liberal theology — the human in the phrase ‘human rights’. Indeed, it is only under the ice age brought about by the liberal order that the term humanity has congealed into an identifiable substance, as watery and tenuous as it is. Rather than imply a shared descent from a singular primeval father or an aspiration towards universally-recognized virtues, to belong to humanity now means to be merely one individual among billions, only loosely tethered to others and capable of cutting ties and jumping bonds. The unsustainable law (dharma) is thus the solitude of the individual (atomic) man who must negotiate his own relations in this world while pretending to be unbound by all the earthly circumstances of his birth. Indeed, this ‘humanity’ could be said to cower in the shadow of its gods, both real and metaphorical, upon whom it has turned its back in its journey into the frigid wastes of modernity, whose need for perfect efficiency and numerical organization disdains the need for sacrifice — for expenditure. When we no longer offer to the gods, our religions become mere theology instead of lived realities. Instead of becoming immortal through deed and seed, thereby uniting sexuality and death, we become a generation of castrati and geldings. Even then, however, expenditure finds a way — think of the Canadian death doctors. All Men must serve and all Men must offer; the only thing we have the right to is to choose our Gods and Masters.

For Land, the erotic is akin to a universal solvent — the aqua regia which eats away at the golden facade of humanity. Like an irrepressible tide, it washes over the defenses erected by the collective ego of the new man of the liberal order, from which deep eroticism has been excised and banished like a leper. But he sees this as an ultimately futile effort because desire is revealed to be a fundamental cosmic reality and the source of all energy. Any efforts to dam up the flow of desire are meaningless because something has to give in front of the burning-hot flows of Eros — and the Cathedral is standing right in front of it. In short, libidinal materialism is a theory of desire:

“There is no difference between desire and the sun: sexuality is not psychological but cosmo-illogical. ‘Sexual activity escapes at least during a flash from the bogging-down of energy, prolonging the movement of the sun’ [VII 11]. A cosmological theory of desire emerges from the ashes of physicalism. This is to presuppose, of course, that idealism, spiritualism, dialectical materialism (shoddy idealism), and similar alternatives have been discarded in a preliminary and rigorously atheological gesture. Libidinal materialism, or the theory of unconditional (non-teleological) desire, is nothing but a scorch-mark from the expository diagnosis of the physicalistic prejudice.” (p. 37)

Land (1992b) illustrates the link between eroticism and evil in the third chapter of TFA, titled ‘Transgression’ by drawing upon Bataille’s references to the case of Gilles de Rais, the French aristocrat and knight who fought alongside Jeanne d’Arc at Orleans before his eventual degeneration into the worst sort of parasitic noble of the ancien régime — a rapacious, homosexual pedophile, and murderer. As Land puts it, de Rais’ tragedy — the tragedy of European nobility writ large — “was that of living the transition from sumptuary to rational sociality” (p. 67). The aristocracy of France, like the rest of their contemporaries, were compelled into a cycle of endless war which served as the gaping wound upon society into which excess production was poured; according to Bataille, despite the saccharine outer veneer of chivalry and romance, the aristocracy, was, at their heart, no different from the ‘German Berzerkers’ (not withstanding the fact that secret murder — what de Rais was guilty of — would have been though of as a deed of nith and made one a nithing under Norse law). And this feudal situation was incarnated in the personage of Gilles de Rais.

As Land (1992b) explains, “War is progressively disinvested by the voluptuary movement passing through the nobility, increasingly becoming an instrument ofrational statecraft, calculatively manipulated by the sovereign.” (p. 68) Funnily enough, Land actually makes mention of cathedrals in this chapter, comparing them with the fortresses of the aristocracy. While the former are seen as disfigured celebrations of the death of God, the latter are tumourous growths, glorifying and accentuating the economy of war, wherein the excess of society is concentrated and sent off to be wasted upon the battlefield. For Land, follwing Bataille, Gilles de Rais was something of a bridge between the sumptuary illogic of the Middle Ages and the accumulative rationality of Modernity. Feudal Warfare reached its peak between the 14th and 15th Centuries, due to the processes that were in the midst of reconfiguring it towards ‘utilitarian’ ends and means; this manifested in the field of war, as men-at-arms, striving for solar glory, began to be replaced by bowmen and pike formations, privileging military discipline over cavalry charges (knights). De Rais, Bataille and Land concur, must have had some inkling of this on-coming dissolution of his (and his class’) purpose in the face of the advent of Modernity:

“It is also with Protestantism that the transgressive outlets of society are de-ritualized and exposed to effective condemnation, a tendency which leads to the terrible exhibitions of atrocity associated with the writings of the Marquis de Sade at the end of the eighteenth century, anticipated already, over three centuries before, with the life of Gilles de Rais.” (p. 65-66)

De Rais’ deeds were besunderly¹ wretched. Land (1992b) draws a line joining the massing of men in fortresses and the way de Rais in his later years began to prey upon the children of his own lands:

“The children of the surrounding areas disappeared into these fortresses, in the same way that the surplus production of the local peasantry had always done, except now the focus of consumption had ceased to be the exterior social spectacle of colliding armies, involuting instead into a sequence of secret killings. Rather than a staging post for excess, the heart of the fortress became its terminus; the site of a hidden and unholy participation in the nihilating voracity which Bataille calls 'the solar anus', or the black sun.” (p. 69)

The sun: sacrifice, glory, the tripartite flame, and differentiation

There is a lot to unpack in what has just been said. Central are the concepts of glory and expenditure. To understand them and their associations with desire, eroticism, and evil, we must return to the source of all energy — the sun. Let us therefore go back to the second chapter of TFA, ‘The curse of the sun’. Here Land (1992b) cites Bataille who explains how everything has an origin in the sun due to the fact that the “green parts” of plants on earth and in the sea appropriate part of the sun’s energy (photosynthesis), as a result of which all other life in the world is sustained:

“It is the green parts of the plants of the solid earth and the seas which endlessly operate the appropriation of an important part of the sun's luminous energy. It is in this way that light - the sun - produces us, animates us, and engenders our excess. This excess, this animation are the effect of the light (we are basically nothing but an effect of the sun) [VII 10).” (p. 27)

Furthermore, the sun is both the thunderbolt of Zeus and the fire of Prometheus — as well the eagle that links them both together (Land, 1992b). The Vedas also say something similar to this. Among all the deities, the two who are perhaps the most significantly connected to Agni-deva are Indra-deva and Sūrya-deva, who together form a Vedic triumvirate linking together the three worlds in the form of the tripartite flame: sun, lightning, and fire. Together, the three can be taken to signify the sum total of godly might. They express the vast power of the Divine that stretches throughout the three worlds and emphasize the relationships between and among Men and Gods. As Yāska-ācārya says in the Nirukta:

“‘There are three deities only,' say the etymologists: (1) Agni, whose sphere is earth; (2) Vāyu² or Indra, whose sphere is atmosphere; (3) the sun, whose sphere is heaven. Of these, each receives many appellations on account of his supereminence, or the diversity of his function, just as a priest, although he is one, is called the sacrificer (hotṛ), the director of the sacrifice (adhvaryu), the possessor of the sacred lore (brahmā), and the chanter (udgātṛ). Or else they may be distinct, for their panegyrics as well as their appellations are distinct. As to the view that (one receives many appellations) on account of the diversity of functions, (it may be remarked) that many men also can do the actions, having divided them among themselves. With regard to it, the community of jurisdiction and enjoyment should be noted, as for instance, the community of men and gods with regard to earth. Community of enjoyment is seen in the following, i.e. the enjoyment of earth by the cloud, together with air and the sun, and of the other world together with Agni. There everything is like the kingdom of man also.” (Sarup, 1984, p. 115-116)

It is necessary, here, to digress onto this topic of “diversity” before we can continue our discussion on the sun. It is of particular significance to our work because it serves to connect us to Deleuze’s work on the subject of ‘difference’. As Smith et al. (2023) explain, Deleuze used Kant’s own philosophy to hone it to an even keener edge by hammering out what he saw as the flaws that yet remained within it: 1) privileging identity over difference; and 2) presuming the existence of supposedly eternal concepts like knowledge, morality, and reason instead of providing an explanation for how they are produced.

Of most obvious significance to us here is the first of these issues: the question of whether the transcendent is personal or impersonal. Smith et al. (2023) state that one of Deleuze’s goals was to deconstruct the privileged ideas that were held by his contemporaries and predecessors in philosophy, including and especially the preference for identity over difference. Deleuze apparently took the position that Kant had ‘smuggled in’ identity to the transcendent:

“First, Kant made the field of consciousness immanent to a transcendental subject, thereby reintroducing an element of identity that is transcendent (that is, external) to the field itself, and reserving all power of synthesis (that is, identity-formation) in the field to the activity of the always already unified and transcendent subject… Deleuze argues for an “impersonal and pre-individual” transcendental field in which the subject as identity pole which produces empirical identities by active synthesis is itself the result or product of differential passive syntheses… Together the passive syntheses at all these levels form a differential field within which subject formation takes place as an integration or resolution of that field; in other words, subjects are roughly speaking the patterns of these multiple and serial syntheses which fold in on themselves producing a site of self-awareness.”

In a sense, then, what Deleuze was propounding was a sort of nirīśvaravādi advaitavāda (atheistic nondualism), wherein the philosophical ‘transcendental’ takes the place of Brahman, and instead of the appearance of multiplicity being created by the superimposition of Māyā upon the former, it is instead an immanentized production of increasing individuation driven by exponential layers of differentiating passive syntheses, each building atop the ones that came before it, into assemblages that come to identified as individual ‘subjects’.

The second problem, however, is equally important, as it led to the formulation of the “principle of difference” (Smith et al., 2023). Kant sought the conditions of possibility of the aforementioned concepts in the transcendental; criticisms of this assumption, which were later picked up by Deleuze, argue that it does not satisfactorily explain how they are produced (searching for the “genetic conditions of real experience”). A ‘principle of difference’ was posited by some thinkers, which suggests that identity is possibility, but difference constitutes the real. Deleuze focused “on the productivity of the non-dialectical (‘affirmative’) differential forces termed by Nietzsche ‘noble.’ These forces affirm themselves, and thereby differentiate themselves first, and only secondarily consider that from which they have differentiated themselves.” At this point, it should not be surprising that this idea also finds a parallel in the Vedas.

The Puruṣa Sūktam states that the visible forms of the Gods and Sages became immanently manifest through the sacrifice of the Puruṣa in order to produce the world. The Puruṣa produced the Virāṭ (or Virāj), the forth-shining cosmos, which then brought forth the first puruṣa, the first produced being, the demiurge, Brahmā, who grew to an enormous size (recall that Brahmā comes from the root meaning ‘to grow’) but lay inactive until he was instructed to perform a golden sacrifice to produce the World. From the complete sacrifice of the Puruṣa was gathered a wondrous ghee-curd substance (pṛṣadājyam), which gave birth to all life — the life-giving seed. From Him come the Gods as we can see them: Candra (moon) from mind, Sūrya (sun) from eye, Indra (lightning) and Agni (fire) from mouth, and Vāyu (wind) from vital breath (prāṇa). From Him were also produced space, sky, earth, and the directions, thereby generating all the worlds.

Let us return to Land’s discussion on the sun. He explains that the sun has two faces: one life-giving and bright — the “illuminating sun”, the other a squandering, contagious, black “sun of malediction” which gives disease afflicts us with ruinous passions, and skewers our senses on the drive to waste ourselves (Land, 1992b). Think again of Apollo: at once the great healer and father of the supreme physician, Aesclepius, who could revive the dead, and yet also the god of the plague-bearing hordes of rats — Smintheus. For Land, this black sun of excess is actually at the very heart of the ‘white sun’ we can (barely) perceive with our sense-organs. It is this superficial white sun that gives only as much as we can take which leads Land to say that “All human endeavour is built upon the sun, in the same way that a dam is built upon a river” (p. 31). It is not only our societies that have been established upon the excess of solar flows, however.

Examples of these two suns, one beneficent and the other malignant, abound in our scriptures. One rather obvious one, is that of Sūrya-deva, Lord of the Sun. He fathers not only Vaivasvata Manu, the Father of Men in this manvantara, but also King Yama, the Lord of the Dead. The Vedas even say that there are three heavenly realms: two belong to Savitā (the sun) and the third to King Yama. In a very literal sense then, the Sun is both our origin and the place to whence we return, all the while we sustain ourselves upon its bounty. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (Eggeling, 1882) says outright that the Sun and Death are one:

“Now yonder burning (sun) doubtless is no other than Death; and because he is Death, therefore the creatures that are on this side of him die. But those that are on the other side of him are the gods, and they are therefore immortal. It is by the rays (or reins, thongs, raśmi) of that (sun) that all these creatures are attached to the vital airs (breaths or life), and therefore the rays extend down to the vital airs.

And the breath of whomsoever he (the sun) wishes he takes and rises, and that one dies. And whosoever goes to yonder world not having escaped that Death, him he causes to die again and again in yonder world, even as, in this world, one regards not him that is fettered, but puts him to death whenever one wishes.” (2.3.3.7-8)

Perhaps most weightily, this section of the text is connected to the Agnihotra yajña, which is compared to the head of an arrow which, once shot, carries the rest of the arrow (other sacrifices) past death, renders the sacrificer as one standing above both night and day as a rider atop a chariot stands above the wheels, and is akin to a ship which carries the sacrificer to the heavens.

We can also consider the duality of Rudra-Śiva (see Introduction), who, like Apollo, is both the Archer who shoots arrows of disease and the Physician who heals them. Recall that Land (1992b) also describes a cosmological desire arising from the “ashes of physicalism” (p. 37), much like how Kāma-deva, who, after being burnt to ashes by Hara, spread out through the worlds and came to live within everyone.

The concept of glory is also intimately tied to Land’s (1992b) reading of Bataille. To put it simply, ‘glory’ is “the necessity of useless waste, where the celestial and the base conspire in the eclipse of rational moderation” (p.30) — this is the truth of the sun at its peak. The sun is thus the image of glory. After discussing human society, Land wonders whether the production of an even more solar society, one “whose gaze was fixed upon the death-core of the sun”, is even possible. After all, socialization is considered to be a rejection of the possibility of ‘living like suns’ (in the Bataillean sense), wasting everything up to and even our lives in the search for glory. The only possibility, Land concludes, is “for a society to persist at the measure of the sun, on condition that a basic aggressivity displaces its sumptuary furore from itself, so that it washes against its neighbours as an incendiary rage”, like the Aztecs, who are seen as “dedicated to a carnage without purpose, whereby they realized the truth of the sun upon the earth.” (p. 32). Land says that Bataille’s sociology of the Aztecs cannot be considered an apology for their actions, though Bataille does not consider them rooted “in an arbitrary mythological vision” (p. 32) which would render European criticisms valid, but thinks that what really drove them is “the thirst for annihilation is the same as the sun.” (p. 33). All of this is of significance to philosophy, according to Land, because “It is not a desire which man directs towards the sun, but the solar trajectory itself, the sun as the unconscious subject of terrestrial history.” (p. 33, emphasis added).

Glory is a chief concern of many of our scriptures and the connections with what Land has said on the matter resound, even if the surface-level elements of his writing might serve to put us off. ‘Undying fame’ — “śravo…ákṣitam” (RV 1.9.7) or “akṣiti śravaḥ” (RV 1.40.4) — has been significant in the establishment of Indo-Hellenic comparative heroic poetics specifically and Indo-European comparative poetics more broadly. In the Vedas, it is often mentioned in connection with Indra-deva, the greatest hero, or Agni-deva, the general of the Devas. Here we see that connection between two parts of the Dharmic tripartite flame and the concept of glory. The connection with the sun becomes even more explicit in the Bhagavad Gītā. Śrī Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna that He Himself imparted the knowledge of this teaching to Vivasvān — the Lord of the Sun; he then passed those teachings down to his son, King Manu, our own forefather (BG 4.1). In Brahma-saṁhitā 5.52 Brahmā says that the sun is the king of the planets, moves and gives off light and heat by Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s orders, and is His eye (as in the Puruṣa Sūktam). This provides a neat parallel to Land (1992b), who says that “Our bodies have sucked upon the sun long before we open our eyes, just as our eyes are congealed droplets of the sun before copulating with its outpourings.” (p. 30). Returning to the Bhagavad Gītā, Arjuna, who, having become perturbed at the coming self-destruction of the Kuru dynasty upon the sacred field of Kurukṣetra, has cast aside his arms and armaments (BG 1), is asked by Śrī Kṛṣṇa how the dirt (of becoming unwilling to fight) has besmirched him, before Madhusūdana chastises Pārtha for his anārya behaviour that leads not to the higher worlds or heavens (asvargyam) but to infamy or unglory (akīrti) (BG 2.2). After Arjuna admits his confusion and unwillingness to enter into battle and engage in the slaying of his own kinsmen and preceptors (ordinarily, two of the greatest sins in the ancient world), Śrī Kṛṣṇa explains that there is an eternal, unending flow of life, from one body to the next, but that even if one was a materialist, unbelieving in the immortal Self, there would still be no reason to fear any sins (that impeded one from doing his duty). He must fight and win either heaven or earth. Recall Land’s (1992b) statement: “To have witnessed the sun is a gain and an entitlement; a supra-terrestrial invitation (however reluctantly accepted) to rule” (p. 27-28). Despite his reluctance, Arjuna is guided through the inner depths of reality by his charioteer and eternal companion, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and comes face to face with the unearthly brightness of the sun. Finally, the connection between the solar radiance, vision, death, sacrifice, and the thirst for annihilation are made explicit. We turn now to the eleventh chapter (‘Viśvarūpa Darśaṇa Yoga’, ‘The Yoga of the Vision of the Cosmic Form’) of the Bhagavad Gītā (Prabhupāda, 1968):

श्रीभगवानुवाच

पश्य मे पार्थ रूपाणि शतशोऽथ सहस्रश: ।

नानाविधानि दिव्यानि नानावर्णाकृतीनि च ॥ ५ ॥

śrī-bhagavān uvāca

paśya me pārtha rūpāṇi

śataśo ’tha sahasraśaḥ

nānā-vidhāni divyāni

nānā-varṇākṛtīni ca (5)

‘The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: My dear Arjuna, O son of Pṛthā, see now My opulences, hundreds of thousands of varied divine and multicolored forms.’

पश्यादित्यान्वसून्‍रुद्रानश्विनौ मरुतस्तथा ।

बहून्यदृष्टपूर्वाणि पश्याश्चर्याणि भारत ॥ ६ ॥

paśyādityān vasūn rudrān

aśvinau marutas tathā

bahūny adṛṣṭa-pūrvāṇi

paśyāścaryāṇi bhārata (6)

‘O best of the Bhāratas, see here the different manifestations of Ādityas, Vasus, Rudras, Aśvinī-kumāras and all the other demigods. Behold the many wonderful things which no one has ever seen or heard of before.’

इहैकस्थं जगत्कृत्स्नं पश्याद्य सचराचरम् ।

मम देहे गुडाकेश यच्च‍ान्यद्‍द्रष्टुमिच्छसि ॥ ७ ॥

ihaika-sthaṁ jagat kṛtsnaṁ

paśyādya sa-carācaram

mama dehe guḍākeśa

yac cānyad draṣṭum icchasi (7)

‘O Arjuna, whatever you wish to see, behold at once in this body of Mine! This universal form can show you whatever you now desire to see and whatever you may want to see in the future. Everything – moving and nonmoving – is here completely, in one place.’

न तु मां शक्यसे द्रष्टुमनेनैव स्वचक्षुषा ।

दिव्यं ददामि ते चक्षु: पश्य मे योगमैश्वरम् ॥ ८ ॥

na tu māṁ śakyase draṣṭum

anenaiva sva-cakṣuṣā

divyaṁ dadāmi te cakṣuḥ

paśya me yogam aiśvaram (8)

‘But you cannot see Me with your present eyes. Therefore I give you divine eyes. Behold My mystic opulence!’

(Compare Land (1992b): “To gaze upon the sun directly, without the intervention of screens, reflections, or metaphors - 'to look upon the sun itself and see its true nature, not by reflections in water or phantasms of it in an alien setting, but in and by itself in its own place' [PCD 748]… the longing for unimpeded vision of the sun is something more; a teleological consolidation of representation as such. The sun is the pure illumination that would be simultaneous with truth, the perfect solidarity of knowing with the real, the identity of exteriority and its manifestation. To contemplate the sun would be the definitive confirmation of enlightenment.” (p. 29) to Prabhupāda’s (1968) commentary on this śloka: “The fact is that the devotee is not concerned with seeing the viśva-rūpa, the universal form, but Arjuna wanted to see it to substantiate Kṛṣṇa’s statements so that in the future people could understand that Kṛṣṇa not only theoretically or philosophically presented Himself as the Supreme but actually presented Himself as such to Arjuna. Arjuna must confirm this because Arjuna is the beginning of the paramparā system. Those who are actually interested in understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, and who follow in the footsteps of Arjuna should understand that Kṛṣṇa not only theoretically presented Himself as the Supreme, but actually revealed Himself as the Supreme.”)

सञ्जय उवाच

एवमुक्त्वा ततो राजन्महायोगेश्वरो हरि: ।

दर्शयामास पार्थाय परमं रूपमैश्वरम् ॥ ९ ॥

sañjaya uvāca

evam uktvā tato rājan

mahā-yogeśvaro hariḥ

darśayām āsa pārthāya

paramaṁ rūpam aiśvaram (9)

‘Sañjaya said: O King, having spoken thus, the Supreme Lord of all mystic power, the Personality of Godhead, displayed His universal form to Arjuna.’

अनेकवक्‍त्रनयनमनेकाद्भ‍ुतदर्शनम् ।

अनेकदिव्याभरणं दिव्यानेकोद्यतायुधम् ॥ १० ॥

दिव्यमाल्याम्बरधरं दिव्यगन्धानुलेपनम् ।

सर्वाश्चर्यमयं देवमनन्तं विश्वतोमुखम् ॥ ११ ॥

aneka-vaktra-nayanam

anekādbhuta-darśanam

aneka-divyābharaṇaṁ

divyānekodyatāyudham (10)

divya-mālyāmbara-dharaṁ

divya-gandhānulepanam

sarvāścarya-mayaṁ devam

anantaṁ viśvato-mukham (11)

‘Arjuna saw in that universal form unlimited mouths, unlimited eyes, unlimited wonderful visions. The form was decorated with many celestial ornaments and bore many divine upraised weapons. He wore celestial garlands and garments, and many divine scents were smeared over His body. All was wondrous, brilliant, unlimited, all-expanding.’

दिवि सूर्यसहस्रस्य भवेद्युगपदुत्थिता ।

यदि भा: सदृशी सा स्याद्भ‍ासस्तस्य महात्मन: ॥ १२ ॥

divi sūrya-sahasrasya

bhaved yugapad utthitā

yadi bhāḥ sadṛśī sā syād

bhāsas tasya mahātmanaḥ (12)

‘If hundreds of thousands of suns were to rise at once into the sky, their radiance might resemble the effulgence of the Supreme Person in that universal form.’

(emphasis added)

तत्रैकस्थं जगत्कृत्स्नं प्रविभक्तमनेकधा ।

अपश्यद्देवदेवस्य शरीरे पाण्डवस्तदा ॥ १३ ॥

tatraika-sthaṁ jagat kṛtsnaṁ

pravibhaktam anekadhā

apaśyad deva-devasya

śarīre pāṇḍavas tadā (13)

‘At that time Arjuna could see in the universal form of the Lord the unlimited expansions of the universe situated in one place although divided into many, many thousands.’

तत: स विस्मयाविष्टो हृष्टरोमा धनञ्जय: ।

प्रणम्य शिरसा देवं कृताञ्जलिरभाषत ॥ १४ ॥

tataḥ sa vismayāviṣṭo

hṛṣṭa-romā dhanañ-jayaḥ

praṇamya śirasā devaṁ

kṛtāñjalir abhāṣata (14)

‘Then, bewildered and astonished, his hair standing on end, Arjuna bowed his head to offer obeisances and with folded hands began to pray to the Supreme Lord.’

अर्जुन उवाच

पश्यामि देवांस्तव देव देहे

सर्वांस्तथा भूतविशेषसङ्घान् ।

ब्रह्माणमीशं कमलासनस्थ-

मृषींश्च सर्वानुरगांश्च दिव्यान् ॥ १५ ॥

arjuna uvāca

paśyāmi devāṁs tava deva dehe

sarvāṁs tathā bhūta-viśeṣa-saṅghān

brahmāṇam īśaṁ kamalāsana-stham

ṛṣīṁś ca sarvān uragāṁś ca divyān (15)

‘Arjuna said: My dear Lord Kṛṣṇa, I see assembled in Your body all the demigods and various other living entities. I see Brahmā sitting on the lotus flower, as well as Lord Śiva and all the sages and divine serpents.’

अनेकबाहूदरवक्‍त्रनेत्रं

पश्यामि त्वां सर्वतोऽनन्तरूपम् ।

नान्तं न मध्यं न पुनस्तवादिं

पश्यामि विश्वेश्वर विश्वरूप ॥ १६ ॥

aneka-bāhūdara-vaktra-netraṁ

paśyāmi tvāṁ sarvato ’nanta-rūpam

nāntaṁ na madhyaṁ na punas tavādiṁ

paśyāmi viśveśvara viśva-rūpa (16)

‘O Lord of the universe, O universal form, I see in Your body many, many arms, bellies, mouths and eyes, expanded everywhere, without limit. I see in You no end, no middle and no beginning.’

किरीटिनं गदिनं चक्रिणं च

तेजोराशिं सर्वतो दीप्‍तिमन्तम् ।

पश्यामि त्वां दुर्निरीक्ष्यं समन्ता-

द्दीप्‍तानलार्कद्युतिमप्रमेयम् ॥ १७ ॥

kirīṭinaṁ gadinaṁ cakriṇaṁ ca

tejo-rāśiṁ sarvato dīptimantam

paśyāmi tvāṁ durnirīkṣyaṁ samantād

dīptānalārka-dyutim aprameyam (17)

‘Your form is difficult to see because of its glaring effulgence, spreading on all sides, like blazing fire or the immeasurable radiance of the sun. Yet I see this glowing form everywhere, adorned with various crowns, clubs and discs.’

(emphasis added)

त्वमक्षरं परमं वेदितव्यं

त्वमस्य विश्वस्य परं निधानम् ।

त्वमव्यय: शाश्वतधर्मगोप्‍ता

सनातनस्त्वं पुरुषो मतो मे ॥ १८ ॥

tvam akṣaraṁ paramaṁ veditavyaṁ

tvam asya viśvasya paraṁ nidhānam

tvam avyayaḥ śāśvata-dharma-goptā

sanātanas tvaṁ puruṣo mato me (18)

‘You are the supreme primal objective. You are the ultimate resting place of all this universe. You are inexhaustible, and You are the oldest. You are the maintainer of the eternal religion, the Personality of Godhead. This is my opinion.’

अनादिमध्यान्तमनन्तवीर्य-

मनन्तबाहुं शशिसूर्यनेत्रम् ।

पश्यामि त्वां दीप्‍तहुताशवक्‍त्रं

स्वतेजसा विश्वमिदं तपन्तम् ॥ १९ ॥

anādi-madhyāntam ananta-vīryam

ananta-bāhuṁ śaśi-sūrya-netram

paśyāmi tvāṁ dīpta-hutāśa-vaktraṁ

sva-tejasā viśvam idaṁ tapantam (19)

‘You are without origin, middle or end. Your glory is unlimited. You have numberless arms, and the sun and moon are Your eyes. I see You with blazing fire coming forth from Your mouth, burning this entire universe by Your own radiance.’

(emphasis added)

द्यावापृथिव्योरिदमन्तरं हि

व्याप्‍तं त्वयैकेन दिशश्च सर्वा: ।

दृष्ट्वाद्‍भुतं रूपमुग्रं तवेदं

लोकत्रयं प्रव्यथितं महात्मन् ॥ २० ॥

dyāv ā-pṛthivyor idam antaraṁ hi

vyāptaṁ tvayaikena diśaś ca sarvāḥ

dṛṣṭvādbhutaṁ rūpam ugraṁ tavedaṁ

loka-trayaṁ pravyathitaṁ mahātman (20)

‘Although You are one, You spread throughout the sky and the planets and all space between. O great one, seeing this wondrous and terrible form, all the planetary systems are perturbed.’

(emphasis added)

अमी हि त्वां सुरसङ्घा विशन्ति

केचिद्भ‍ीता: प्राञ्जलयो गृणन्ति ।

स्वस्तीत्युक्त्वा महर्षिसिद्धसङ्घा:

स्तुवन्ति त्वां स्तुतिभि: पुष्कलाभि: ॥ २१ ॥

amī hi tvāṁ sura-saṅghā viśanti

kecid bhītāḥ prāñjalayo gṛṇanti

svastīty uktvā maharṣi-siddha-saṅghāḥ

stuvanti tvāṁ stutibhiḥ puṣkalābhiḥ (21)

‘All the hosts of demigods are surrendering before You and entering into You. Some of them, very much afraid, are offering prayers with folded hands. Hosts of great sages and perfected beings, crying “All peace!” are praying to You by singing the Vedic hymns.’

रुद्रादित्या वसवो ये च साध्या

विश्वेऽश्विनौ मरुतश्चोष्मपाश्च ।

गन्धर्वयक्षासुरसिद्धसङ्घा

वीक्षन्ते त्वां विस्मिताश्चैव सर्वे ॥ २२ ॥

rudrādityā vasavo ye ca sādhyā

viśve ’śvinau marutaś coṣmapāś ca

gandharva-yakṣāsura-siddha-saṅghā

vīkṣante tvāṁ vismitāś caiva sarve (22)

‘All the various manifestations of Lord Śiva, the Ādityas, the Vasus, the Sādhyas, the Viśvedevas, the two Aśvīs, the Maruts, the forefathers, the Gandharvas, the Yakṣas, the Asuras and the perfected demigods are beholding You in wonder.’

रूपं महत्ते बहुवक्‍त्रनेत्रं

महाबाहो बहुबाहूरुपादम् ।

बहूदरं बहुदंष्ट्राकरालं

दृष्ट्वा लोका: प्रव्यथितास्तथाहम् ॥ २३ ॥

rūpaṁ mahat te bahu-vaktra-netraṁ

mahā-bāho bahu-bāhūru-pādam

bahūdaraṁ bahu-daṁṣṭrā-karālaṁ

dṛṣṭvā lokāḥ pravyathitās tathāham (23)

‘O mighty-armed one, all the planets with their demigods are disturbed at seeing Your great form, with its many faces, eyes, arms, thighs, legs and bellies and Your many terrible teeth; and as they are disturbed, so am I.’

नभ:स्पृशं दीप्‍तमनेकवर्णं

व्यात्ताननं दीप्‍तविशालनेत्रम् ।

दृष्ट्वा हि त्वां प्रव्यथितान्तरात्मा

धृतिं न विन्दामि शमं च विष्णो ॥ २४ ॥

nabhaḥ-spṛśaṁ dīptam aneka-varṇaṁ

vyāttānanaṁ dīpta-viśāla-netram

dṛṣṭvā hi tvāṁ pravyathitāntar-ātmā

dhṛtiṁ na vindāmi śamaṁ ca viṣṇo (24)

‘O all-pervading Viṣṇu, seeing You with Your many radiant colors touching the sky, Your gaping mouths, and Your great glowing eyes, my mind is perturbed by fear. I can no longer maintain my steadiness or equilibrium of mind.’

दंष्ट्राकरालानि च ते मुखानि

दृष्ट्वैव कालानलसन्निभानि ।

दिशो न जाने न लभे च शर्म

प्रसीद देवेश जगन्निवास ॥ २५ ॥

daṁṣṭrā-karālāni ca te mukhāni

dṛṣṭvaiva kālānala-sannibhāni

diśo na jāne na labhe ca śarma

prasīda deveśa jagan-nivāsa (25)

‘O Lord of lords, O refuge of the worlds, please be gracious to me. I cannot keep my balance seeing thus Your blazing deathlike faces and awful teeth. In all directions I am bewildered.’

(emphasis added)

अमी च त्वां धृतराष्ट्रस्य पुत्रा:

सर्वे सहैवावनिपालसङ्घै: ।

भीष्मो द्रोण: सूतपुत्रस्तथासौ

सहास्मदीयैरपि योधमुख्यै: ॥ २६ ॥

वक्‍त्राणि ते त्वरमाणा विशन्ति

दंष्ट्राकरालानि भयानकानि ।

केचिद्विलग्न‍ा दशनान्तरेषु

सन्दृश्यन्ते चूर्णितैरुत्तमाङ्गै: ॥ २७ ॥

amī ca tvāṁ dhṛtarāṣṭrasya putrāḥ

sarve sahaivāvani-pāla-saṅghaiḥ

bhīṣmo droṇaḥ sūta-putras tathāsau

sahāsmadīyair api yodha-mukhyaiḥ (26)

vaktrāṇi te tvaramāṇā viśanti

daṁṣṭrā-karālāni bhayānakāni

kecid vilagnā daśanāntareṣu

sandṛśyante cūrṇitair uttamāṅgaiḥ (27)

‘All the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, along with their allied kings, and Bhīṣma, Droṇa, Karṇa – and our chief soldiers also – are rushing into Your fearful mouths. And some I see trapped with heads smashed between Your teeth.’

(Compare Land (1992b): “All human endeavour is built upon the sun, in the same way that a dam is built upon a river, but that there could be a solar society in a stronger sense - a society whose gaze was fixed upon the death­ core of the sun - seems at first to be an impossibility. Is it not the precise negation of sociality to respond to the 'will for glory [that] exists in us which would that we live like suns, squandering our goods and our life' [VII 193)? Without doubt any closed social system would obliterate itself if it migrated too far into the searing heart of its solar agitation, unpicking the primary repression of its foundation.” (p. 31-32) and Prabhupāda’s (1968) commentary on this śloka: “In a previous verse the Lord promised to show Arjuna things he would be very interested in seeing. Now Arjuna sees that the leaders of the opposite party (Bhīṣma, Droṇa, Karṇa and all the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra) and their soldiers and Arjuna’s own soldiers are all being annihilated. This is an indication that after the death of nearly all the persons assembled at Kurukṣetra, Arjuna will emerge victorious. It is also mentioned here that Bhīṣma, who is supposed to be unconquerable, will also be smashed. So also Karṇa. Not only will the great warriors of the other party like Bhīṣma be smashed, but some of the great warriors of Arjuna’s side also.”)

यथा नदीनां बहवोऽम्बुवेगा:

समुद्रमेवाभिमुखा द्रवन्ति ।

तथा तवामी नरलोकवीरा

विशन्ति वक्‍त्राण्यभिविज्‍वलन्ति ॥ २८ ॥

yathā nadīnāṁ bahavo ’mbu-vegāḥ

samudram evābhimukhā dravanti

tathā tavāmī nara-loka-vīrā

viśanti vaktrāṇy abhivijvalanti (28)

‘As the many waves of the rivers flow into the ocean, so do all these great warriors enter blazing into Your mouths.’

(emphasis added)

यथा प्रदीप्‍तं ज्‍वलनं पतङ्गा

विशन्ति नाशाय समृद्धवेगा: ।

तथैव नाशाय विशन्ति लोका-

स्तवापि वक्‍त्राणि समृद्धवेगा: ॥ २९ ॥

yathā pradīptaṁ jvalanaṁ pataṅgā

viśanti nāśāya samṛddha-vegāḥ

tathaiva nāśāya viśanti lokās

tavāpi vaktrāṇi samṛddha-vegāḥ (29)

‘I see all people rushing full speed into Your mouths, as moths dash to destruction in a blazing fire.’

(emphasis added)

लेलिह्यसे ग्रसमान: समन्ता-

ल्ल‍ोकान्समग्रान्वदनैज्‍‍र्वलद्भ‍िः ।

तेजोभिरापूर्य जगत्समग्रं

भासस्तवोग्रा: प्रतपन्ति विष्णो ॥ ३० ॥

lelihyase grasamānaḥ samantāl

lokān samagrān vadanair jvaladbhiḥ

tejobhir āpūrya jagat samagraṁ

bhāsas tavogrāḥ pratapanti viṣṇo (30)

‘O Viṣṇu, I see You devouring all people from all sides with Your flaming mouths. Covering all the universe with Your effulgence, You are manifest with terrible, scorching rays.’

(Compare Land (1992b): “It is only because of this unsurpassable dominion of the sun that '[f]or the common and uncultivated consciousness the sun is the image of glory. The sun radiates: glory is represented as similarly ·luminous, and radiating' [VII 189], such that 'the analogy of a sacrificial death in the flames to the solar burst is the response of man to the splendour of the universe' [VII 193], since 'human sacrifice is the acute moment of a contest opposing to the real order and duration the movement of a violence without measure' [VII 317].” (p. 33)

आख्याहि मे को भवानुग्ररूपो

नमोऽस्तु ते देववर प्रसीद ।

विज्ञातुमिच्छामि भवन्तमाद्यं

न हि प्रजानामि तव प्रवृत्तिम् ॥ ३१ ॥

ākhyāhi me ko bhavān ugra-rūpo

namo ’stu te deva-vara prasīda

vijñātum icchāmi bhavantam ādyaṁ

na hi prajānāmi tava pravṛttim (31)

‘O Lord of lords, so fierce of form, please tell me who You are. I offer my obeisances unto You; please be gracious to me. You are the primal Lord. I want to know about You, for I do not know what Your mission is.’

श्रीभगवानुवाच

कालोऽस्मि लोकक्षयकृत्प्रवृद्धो

लोकान्समाहर्तुमिह प्रवृत्त: ।

‍ऋतेऽपि त्वां न भविष्यन्ति सर्वे

येऽवस्थिता: प्रत्यनीकेषु योधा: ॥ ३२ ॥

śrī-bhagavān uvāca

kālo ’smi loka-kṣaya-kṛt pravṛddho

lokān samāhartum iha pravṛttaḥ

ṛte ’pi tvāṁ na bhaviṣyanti sarve

ye ’vasthitāḥ praty-anīkeṣu yodhāḥ (32)

‘The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people. With the exception of you [the Pāṇḍavas], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain.’

तस्मात्त्वमुत्तिष्ठ यशो लभस्व

जित्वा शत्रून्भुंक्ष्व राज्यं समृद्धम् ।

मयैवैते निहता: पूर्वमेव

निमित्तमात्रं भव सव्यसाचिन् ॥ ३३ ॥

tasmāt tvam uttiṣṭha yaśo labhasva

jitvā śatrūn bhuṅkṣva rājyaṁ samṛddham

mayaivaite nihatāḥ pūrvam eva

nimitta-mātraṁ bhava savya-sācin (33)

‘Therefore get up. Prepare to fight and win glory. Conquer your enemies and enjoy a flourishing kingdom. They are already put to death by My arrangement, and you, O Savyasācī, can be but an instrument in the fight.’

(Compare Land (1992b) “To have witnessed the sun is a gain and an entitlement; a supra-terrestrial invitation (however reluctantly accepted) to rule… Light, desire, and politics are tangled together in this story” (p. 27-28). Recall, again, that the eagle is the symbol of Zeus, king of the Olympians, and in the Vedic tradition, is associated with Indra-deva, king of the Devas, but also Viṣṇu, for Whom the bird serves as a vehicle. Thus, the parallels between the Vedic and Landian associations of glory with royalty and the sun are established.)

द्रोणं च भीष्मं च जयद्रथं च

कर्णं तथान्यानपि योधवीरान् ।

मया हतांस्त्वं जहि मा व्यथिष्ठा

युध्यस्व जेतासि रणे सपत्‍नान् ॥ ३४ ॥

droṇaṁ ca bhīṣmaṁ ca jayadrathaṁ ca

karṇaṁ tathānyān api yodha-vīrān

mayā hatāṁs tvaṁ jahi mā vyathiṣṭhā

yudhyasva jetāsi raṇe sapatnān (34)

‘Droṇa, Bhīṣma, Jayadratha, Karṇa and the other great warriors have already been destroyed by Me. Therefore, kill them and do not be disturbed. Simply fight, and you will vanquish your enemies in battle.’

(emphasis added)

Finally, let us conclude this section with an explanation of the integral concept of expenditure and its connection with the sun. We have mentioned how the sun is connected to desire, excess, life, and death. But what exactly is ‘expenditure’ and what is its significance? Land (1992b) explains this in the third chapter of TFA titled ‘Transgression’:

“The solar source of all terrestrial resources commits them to an abysmal generosity, which Bataille calls 'glory'. This is perhaps best understood as a contagious profligacy, according to which all inhibition, accumulation, and reservation is destined to fail. The infrastructure of the terrestrial process inheres in the obstructive character of the earth, in its mere bulk as a momentary arrest of solar energy flow, which lends itself to hypostatization. When the silting-up of energy upon the surface of the planet is interpreted by its complex consequences as rigid utility, a productivist civilization is initiated, whose culture involves a history of ontology, and a moral order. Systemic limits to growth require that the inevitable re-commencement of the solar trajectory scorches jagged perforations through such civilizations. The resultant ruptures cannot be securely assimilated to a meta-social homeostatic mechanism, because they have an immoderate, epidemic tendency. Bataille writes of 'the virulence of death' [X 70]. Expenditure is irreducibly ruinous because it is not merely useless, but also contagious. Nothing is more infectious than the passion for collapse. Predominant amongst the incendiary and epidemic gashes which contravene the interests of mankind are eroticism, base religion, inutile criminality, and war.” (p. 65, emphasis added)

Expenditure — sacrifice — then, is so pernicious precisely because it ‘contagious’. Man has an in-built inclination to make offerings to Gods and to the materialist mind, whether physicalist or libidinalist, this is nothing but ‘waste’. If such wastage does drive Men to constantly engage in ever greater acts of expenditure, then it is proof of an innate logic entirely alien to that of Capital, and thus, of the survival of an irredentist challenger to the throne of the world. It should therefore come as no surprise that its hierophants are so terrified of sacrifice. This Modern order that they have built and maintained requires the complete rationalization and mathematization of every aspect of human life, and the spread of a sacrificial sickness that could hamper the continued and efficient functioning of the economic machine could be nothing less than a grave heresy. We can see how ‘catchy’ religiosity of all sorts can be, and how the differing responses of the reigning archons to distinct manifestations of faith, zeal, and piety demonstrate whether the Cathedralist order believes it can be co-opted or not. Take for example the actions of the Black Fists at the beginning of this decade, whose ‘fiery, but mostly peaceful protests’ promised earthly deliverance from the contagion said to be wreaking havoc upon the world. The Cathedral was quick to align itself with their movement and canonized their martyrs into veritable popular sainthood. Contrast that with the great Hindu victory of reclamation of a true Holy Land, which has been derided, denigrated, and tarnished by every cretin that can wield a pen. The former is functionally unlanded, and thus, open to institutional absorption. The latter is fundamentally landed, bound by thick roots of blood, soil, and faith to a particular people, place, and piety in the three worlds and beyond. The Cathedral, in spite of its insipid secularity, understands that our Gods are a threat to its hollow technogoetic vision for the future and cringes in fear, just as fiends always quail before the majesty of the Divine. Like Grima Wormtongue, whispering ill-words in the ear of the Theoden, king, and driving him to madness and unrest, the newsmen of this present order poison the peoples of the world against us, especially those to whom we have long had deep ties of flesh and faith.

It can be said that Mankind was born of transgression. It is said that Prajāpati, inflamed by desire, sought a forbidden union with a partner who should never have been his. Upon seeing this, the Devas were outraged at the act. They gathered together their powers and brought forth a great and terrible being: Vāstoṣpati, the defender of the house. That fearsome corspe-throned Rudra, filled with wrath at the deep impropriety of this sin fired his three-pointed arrow at the Lord of Progeny who had taken the shape of a ruddy deer, and he struck him gravely. However, the bolt shot by the Great Archer made the shining stuff of Prajāpati scatter across the dark vastness of space, and since the Devas desired that it should not go to waste, it became the unspoiled (māduṣam). But since the Devas love that which is parokṣa (‘mysterious’ or ‘subtle’; lit. ‘beyond-the-eye’), they made man (mānuṣam) from the unspoiled (māduṣam). The seed of desire is its own product and regardless of what is meant to obstruct it, the seed will out.

1. Coined on the grounds of German besonders, ‘uniquely, particularly, especially’, from be + sunder + ly.

2. The mysterious Vedic figure who brings fire to men, Mātariśvan (‘growing in the wind’, or ‘growing in the kindling stick’), is identified by some Vedic commentators as Vāyu, the Wind; in the Mahābhārata, it is a name of a son of Garuḍa, the eagle-like servant and vehicle of Lord Viṣṇu, thus completing the comparison.

---

Works Cited

Adluri, V. (2018). Nārāyaṇīya: Translation, Introduction, and Philosophical Commentary (dissertation). Shodhganga : a reservoir of Indian theses. INFLIBNET. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10603/223485.

Bataille, G. (1976). Georges Bataille: Oeuvres complètes (Jacquelynn Baas, Trans., Thadée Klossowski, Ed.; Vol. 7). Editions Gallimard.

de Rosnay, J. (1997, January 6). Feedback. Principia Cybernetica Web. http://cleamc11.vub.ac.be/FEEDBACK.html

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2009). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (R. Hurley, M. Seem, & H. R. Lane, Trans.). Penguin. (Original work published 1972)

Georges Bataille, & Jacquelynn Baas. (1976). Notice autobiographique. In Thadée Klossowski (Ed.), Œuvres complètes(Vol. 7, p. 462). essay, Gallimard.

Hesiod. (1914). The Theogony. In H. G. Evelyn-White (Trans.), Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns, and Homerica (pp. 78–153). essay, Harvard University Press.

Jankowiak, T. (n.d.). Immanuel Kant. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/kantview/

Lakṣmī Tantra: A Pāñcarātra text: Indian edition (S. Gupta, Trans.). (2000). . Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. (Original work published 1972)

Land, N. (1988). Kant, capital, and the prohibition of incest. Third Text, 2(5), 83–94. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09528828808576206

Land, N. (1992a). Circuitries. Pli—the Warwick Journal of Philosophy, 4(1/2), 217–235.

Land, N. (1992b). The thirst for annihilation: Georges Bataille and virulent nihilism (an essay in atheistic religion). Routledge.

Land, N. (1993). Machinic desire. Textual Practice, 7(3: Desire), 471–482. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09502369308582177

Land, N. (1997). Virtual Futures (1994). In Abstract Culture (Vol. 1 (first swarm)). Coventry; Cybernetic Culture Research Unit.

Land, N. (2012). Fanged Noumena (R. Mackay & R. Brassier, Eds.; 2nd ed.). Urbanomic ; Sequence Press.

Land, N. (2017, May 25). A quick-and-dirty introduction to accelerationism. Jacobite. Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/document/453371407/A-Quick-and-Dirty-Introduction-to-Accelerationism-Jacobite-pdf.

Ramaswamy, K., De Nicolás, A. T., & Banerjee, A. (2007). Invading the sacred: An analysis of hinduism studies in America. Rupa & Co.

Smith, D., Protevi, J., & Voss, D. (2022, June 3). Gilles Deleuze. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/deleuze/

Spandrell. (2013, March 26). Lee Kuan Yew Drains Your Brains for Short Term Gain. Bloody Shovel 4. https://spandrell.ch/2013/3/26/lee-kuan-yew-drains-your-brains-for-short-term-gain

Stoljar, D. (2021, May 25). Physicalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entrieS/physicalism/

Taylor, M. (2021). The Viṣṇu Purāṇa: Ancient annals of the god with lotus eyes. Australian National University Press.

Vyāsa. (1991). Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa (K. M. Ganguli, Trans.; Vol. 12). Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. The Technology Press.