References

...

1.Published in E.T., July-August, 1947. ↩
2.Book review of the posthumous book of Heinrich Zimmer, Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization, in The Review of Religion, March 1947. ↩
3.It is clearly understood that this sense must be in conformity with the traditional conception of art, and not with the 'aesthetic' theories of the moderns. ↩
4.In Western terminology, one may say here that one must not confuse Natura naturans with Natura naturata, although both are termed Natura. ↩
5.Krṣna said: 'Although without birth...I am born of my own māyā.' Bhagavadgītā, IV.6. ↩
6.Cf. The Great Triad, ch. 1, final part; it must be clearly understood on this subject that Christian tradition, which does not clearly view the 'maternal' aspect in the Principle itself, can only take, at least explicitly, regarding its conception of Theotokos, the second of the two points of view that we just indicated. As Dr. Coomaraswamy says, 'it is not by accident that the name of Buddha's mother is Māyā' (similarly among the Greek, Maria is the mother of Hermes). It is upon this also that rests the parallel that certain people have wanted to draw between the names Māyā and Maria. ↩
7.The Symbolism of the Cross, ch. XIV. ↩
8.Dr. Coomaraswamy recalls in this regard a remark made by St. Augustine: 'Quo comparata nec pulchra, nec bona, nec sunt,' Donfessions, XI. 4 . ↩