वेदों की प्राचीनता एवं काल-निर्णय / ओरायन (लोकमान्य बाल गंगाधर तिलक - खगोलीय वैदिक शोध)

244 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS. upon the lives and fortunes of the beholders.'"* For this rea- son Prof. Kuhn thinks that these meteorological phenomena are the principal ground-work of all Indo-European mythologies and superstitions; and in accordance with this creed Prof. Roth explains Saraṇyu as the dark storm-cloud soaring in the space in the beginning of all things and takes Vivasvat as representing the light of heavens. The third theory, like the first, is solar in origin, and at- tempts to explain certain Vedic myths on the supposition that they represent the triumph of spring over snow and winter. Yâska and other Indian Nairuktas lived in regions where the contrast between spring and winter was not so marked as in the countries still further north; and it was probably for this reason that the Vernal theory was not put forward by them to explain the Vedic myths. Prof. Max Muller has tried to explain most of the exploits of the Ashvins by this theory.† If the Ashvins re- stored Chyavâna to youth, if they protected Atri from the heat and darkness, if they rescued Vandana from a pit where he was buried alive, or if they replaced the leg of Vishpalâ, which she had lost in battle, or restored to Ṛijrâshva his eye sight, it was simply the Sun-god restored to his former glory after the decay of his powers in winter. In short the birth of the vernal Sun, his fight against the army of winter, and his final victory at the beginning of the spring is, on this theory, the true key to the explanation of many myths where the Sun-god is represented as dying, decaying or undergoing some other affliction. As contrasted with the Dawn theory the physical phenomena, here referred to, are annual. But both are solar theories, and as such may be contrasted with the Storm theory which is meteorological in origin.

• See Max Muller's Lectures on the Science of Language Vol. II, p. 566. † See Contributions to the Science of Mythology, Vol. II, pp. 579-605

VEDIC MYTHS—THE CAPTIVE WATERS. 245 Besides these three theories, the Dawn, the Storm and the Vernal, Mr. Nârâyaṇa Aiyangâr of Bangalore has recently at- tempted to explain a number of Vedic myths on the hypothesis that they refer to Orion and Aldebaran. This may be called the Astral theory as distinguished from others. But all these theo- ries cannot be discussed in this place; nor is it necessary to do so, so far as our purpose is concerned. I wish only to show that in spite of the various theories started to explain the Vedic myths, a number of incidents in several important legends have yet remained unexplained; and mythologists have either ignored them altogether, or pushed them out of the way as insignificant or immaterial. If everything could be explained by the Dawn or the Storm theory, we may indeed hesitate to accept a new theory for which there would then be very little scope; but when a number of facts, which have yet remained unexplained, are satisfactorily and appropriately accounted for only by the Arctic theory, we shall be perfectly justified in citing these legends as corroborative evidence in support of our new theory. It is from this point of view that I mean to examine some of the important Vedic myths in this and the following chapter, and shall now begin with the legend of Indra and Vṛitra, or of captive waters, which is generally believed to have been satisfactorily explained by the Storm theory. The struggle between Indra and Vṛitra is represented in the Vedas as being four-fold in character. First, it is a struggle bet- ween Indra and Vṛitra, the latter of whom appears also under the names of Namuchi, Shuṣhṇa, Shambara, Vala, Pipru, Kuyava and others. This is Vṛitra-tûrya, or the fight or struggle with Vṛitra. Secondly, it is a fight for the waters, which, either in the form of sindhus (rivers) or as âpaḥ (simple floods), are often des- cribed as released or liberated by the slaughter of Vṛitra. This is ap-tûrya or the struggle for waters; and Indra is called apsu-jit or

246 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS. conquering in the waters, while Vṛitra is described as encom- passing them (apaḥ pari-shayânam). Thirdly, it is a struggle to re- gain the cows (go-ishṭi); and there are several passages in the Ṛig-Veda where the cows are said to have been released by Indra after having overthrown Vṛitra. Fourthly, it is a fight to regain the day-light or heaven called (div-ishṭi), or the striving for day ; and in many places the sun and the dawn are said to be brought out by Indra after killing Vṛitra.* The following extracts from Macdonell's Vedic Mythology give the requisite authorities from the Ṛig-Veda for this four-fold character of the struggle between Indra and Vṛitra. Speaking of the terrible conflict, he thus sums up the principal incidents thereof as mentioned in the Ṛig-Veda :- "Heaven and earth tremble with fear when Indra strikes Vṛitra with his bolt (I, 80, 11 ; II, 11, 9-10; VI, 17, 9); even Tvaṣhṭṛi, who forged the bolt, trembles at Indra's anger (I, 80, 14). Indra shatters Vṛitra with his bolt (I, 32, 5); and strikes his face with his pointed weapon (I, 52, 15). He smote Vṛitra, who encompassed the waters (VI, 20, 2), or the dragon that lay around (pari-shayânam) the waters (IV, 19, 2); he overcame the dragon lying on the waters (V, 30, 6). He slew the dragon hidden in the water and obstructing the waters and the sky (II, 11, 5), and smote Vṛitra, who enclo- sed the waters, like a tree, with the bolt (II, 14, 2). Thus

• The exploits of Indra are very pithily summed up in the Nivids or short sûtras or sentences used in offering oblations to the gods. These will be found collected in a separate chapter amongst the Pari- shishṭas or supplements to the Ṛig-Veda Saṁhitâ text published in Bombay (Tatvavivechaka Press). According to Dr. Haug these Nivids are the originals of the Vedic Suktas or hymns. The Nivids, relating to Indra's exploits contain the following :—इंद्रो मरुत्वान् सोमस्य पिबतु ...। अन्वहन्नासृजदपः । महतामोजसा सह ।...। अप्तूर्ये वृत्रतूर्ये । शंबरहत्ये गविष्टौ ।..। परमस्यां परावति ।...। वज्रस्य भर्त्ता । पुरां भेत्ता ।...। अपां स्रष्टा अपां नेता । As regards the meaning of Div-ishṭi see Oldenberg's Vedic- Hymns (I, 45, 7), S. B. E. Series, Vol. XLVI. p. 44.

VEDIC MYTHS—THE CAPTIVE WATERS. 247 'conquering in the waters (apsu-jit)' is his exclusive attribute (VIII, 36, 1)."* As regards the abode of Vṛitra, we have (§ 68, A):— "Vṛitra has a hidden (ninya) abode, whence the waters, when released by Indra, escape, overflowing the demon (I, 32, 10). Vṛitra lies on the waters (I, 121, 11; II, 11, 9), or enve- loped by the waters, at the bottom (budhna) of the rajas or aerial space (I, 52, 6). He is also described as lying on a summit (sānu), when Indra made the waters to flow (I, 80, 5). Vṛitra has fortresses, which Indra shatters when he slays him (X, 89, 7), and which are ninety-nine in number (VIII, 93, 2; VII, 19, 5). He is called nadi-vrit, or encompasser of rivers (I, 52, 2), and in one passage parvata or cloud is described as being within his belly (I, 54, 10)." There are again passages (V, 32, 5 & 6) where Indra is said to have placed Shuṣhṇa, who was anxious to fight, "in the darkness of the pit," and slaughtered him "in the darkness, which was unrelieved by the rays of the sun," (asūrye tamasi). In I, 54, 10, darkness is said to have prevailed in Vṛitra's hollow side, and in II, 23, 18, Bṛihaspati, with Indra, is said to have hurled down, the ocean, which was "encom- passed in darkness," and opened the stall of kine. Finally in I, 32, 10, Vṛitra's body is said to have sunk in "long dark- ness," being encompassed with waters. This shows that the waters of the ocean, which was encompassed by Vṛitra, were not lighted by the rays of the sun. In other words, the ocean (arṇaḥ) which Vṛitra is said to have encompassed was different from the 'bright ocean' (shukram arṇaḥ), which the sun is said to have ascended in V, 45, 10. Vṛitra's ocean (arṇava) was enveloped in darkness (tamasā parivṛitam, II, 23, 18), while the ocean, which the sun ascended, was bright and shin- ing (shukram). Indra is again described as going to a very

• See Macdonell's Vedic Mythology, in Grundriss der Indo- Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, § 22 (Indra), pp. 58-61.

248 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS. distant (parâvat) region to kill Vṛitra or Namuchi, (I, 53, 7; VIII, 12, 17; VIII, 45, 25). If we combine all these statements regarding the scene of the struggle between Indra and Vṛitra, we are led to the conclusion that the fight took place in a dark, distant and watery region. In VIII, 32, 26, Indra is said to have killed Arbuda with ice (hima); and in X, 62, 2, the Aṅgirases, who were the assistants of Indra in his conquest of the cows, are said to have struck Vala at the end of the year (parivatsare). There is another statement in the Ṛig-Veda, which gives us the date of Indra's fight with Shambara, but we shall discuss it later on. It is stated above that the number of Vṛitra's forts destroyed by Indra is given as ninety-nine; but in other passages it is said to be ninety or one hundred (I, 130, 7; IV, 30, 20). These fortresses or cities (puraḥ) are described as made of stone or iron (IV, 30, 20; IV, 27, 1), and in some places they are said to be autumnal (shâ- radiḥ, I, 130, 7; 131, 4; VI, 20, 10). The importance of these facts, in the interpretation of the legend, will be discussed later on. We have seen that the release of cows and the bringing up of the dawn and the sun are the simultaneous effects of Indra's conquest of Vṛitra. The following extract from Macdonell's Vedic Mythology (p. 61) give the necessary au- thorities on the point:— "With the liberation of waters is connected the winning of light, sun and dawn. Indra won light and the divine waters (III, 34, 8), The god is invoked to slay Vṛitra and win the light, (VIII, 89, 4). When Indra had slain the dra- gon Vṛitra with his metallic bolt releasing the waters for man, he placed the sun visibly in the heavens (I, 51, 4; 52, 8). In- dra, the dragon-slayer, set in motion the flood of waters of the sea, generated the sun, and found the cows (II, 19, 3). He gained the sun and the waters after slaying the demon (III, 34, 8-9). When Indra slew the chief of the dragons and

VEDIC MYTHS--THE CAPTIVE WATERS. 249 released the waters from the mountain, he generated the sun, the sky and the dawn (I, 32, 4; VI, 30, 5). The cows are also mentioned along with the sun and the dawn (I, 62, 5; II, 12, 7; VI, 17, 5), or with the sun alone (I, 7, 3; II, 19, 3; X, 138, 2), as being found, delivered or won by Indra." Indra is described in other passages as having released the streams pent up by the dragon (II, 11, 2,), and he is said to have won the cows and made the seven rivers flow (I, 32, 12; II, 12, 12). In II, 15, 6, the streams released by him have been described as flowing upwards (udañcham). It may be further noticed that in all these passages the clouds are not referred to under their ordinary name abhra; but the words used are parvata, giri, adri, (which primarily mean a mountain), or ūdhas (udder), utsa (spring) kabandha (cask) or kosha (pail). All these words have been interpreted by the Nairuktas as meaning a cloud, and this interpretation has been accepted by Western scholars. The word go, which generally means a cow, is also interpreted in some cases to mean the waters released by Indra. Thus when Indra is said to have released the cows, which were fast within the stone (VI, 43, 3); or when he is said to have moved the rock, which encompassed the cows, from its place (VI, 17, 5), it is understood that the reference is to a cloud- rock, which imprisons the rain-waters. Maruts are the usual companions of Indra in this fight; but Viṣṇu, Agni, and Bṛihaspati are also spoken of as assisting him in the rescue of the cows from the grip of Vala. Bṛihaspati's conquest of Vala, who had taken shelter in a rock, is thus taken to be a paraphrase of Indra's conquest over Vṛitra. In X, 62, 2 and 3, the Aṅgirases are also described as driving out the cows, piercing Vala and causing the sun to mount the sky,--exploits, which are usually attributed to Indra. There are other versions of the same story to be found in the Ṛig-Veda, but for the purpose in hand, we need not go beyond what has been stated above.

250 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS. Now whosoever reads this description of Indra's fight with Vṛitra cannot fail to be struck with the fact that there are four simultaneous effects (Sâkam, in VI, 30, 5) said to have been produced by the conquest of Indra over Vṛitra, namely, (1) the release of the cows, (2) the release of the waters, (3) the production of the dawn and (4) the production of the sun. Let us now see if the Storm theory satisfactorily explains the simultaneous production of these results from the destruction of Vṛitra. Vṛitra is a cloud, a storm- cloud, or a rain-cloud, hovering in the sky, and by smiting it with his thunder-bolt Indra may well be described as releasing the waters imprisoned therein. But where are the cows which are said to be released along with the waters? The Nairuktas inter- pret cows to mean waters; but in that case, the release of the waters and the release of the cows cannot be regarded as two distinct effects. The recovery of the dawn and the sun, along with the release of waters, is, however, still more difficult to ex- plain by the Storm theory, or, we might even say, that it cannot be explained at all. Rain-clouds may temporarily obscure the sun, but the phenomenon is not one which occurs regularly, and it is not possible to speak of the production of the light of the sun as resulting from the breaking up of the clouds, which may only occasionally obscure the sun. The recovery of the dawn, as a prize of the conflict between Indra and Vṛitra, simultaneously with the release of waters, is, similarly, quite inexplicable by the Storm theory. The rain-clouds usually move in the heavens, and though we may occasionally find them on the horizon, it is absurd to say that by striking the clouds Indra brought out the dawn. I know of no attempt made by any scholar to explain the four simultaneous effects of Indra's- fight with Vṛitra by any other theory. The Storm theory appears to have been suggested by the Nairuktas, because the release of waters was supposed to be the principal effect of the conquest, and waters were naturally understood to mean the

VEDIC MYTHS—THE CAPTIVE WATERS. 251 waters, which we see every day. But in spite of the efforts of the Nairuktas and Western scholars, the simultaneous winning of light and waters still remains unexplained. Macdonell (Ved. Myth. p. 61) referring to this difficulty observes, " There appears to be a confusion between the notion of the restoration of the sun after the darkness of the thunderstorm, and the re- covery of the sun from the darkness of the night at dawn. The latter trait in the Indra myth is most probably only an extension of the former." If this means anything, it is only a confession of the inability of Vedic scholars to explain the four simultaneous effects of Indra's conquest over Vṛitra by the storm theory; and, strange to say, they seem to attribute their failure, not to their own ignorance or inability, but to the alleged confusion of ideas on the part of the Vedic bards. These are not, however, the only points, in which the Storm theory fails to explain the legend of Indra and Vṛitra. It has been pointed out above that Vṛitra was killed in distant regions, in which ghastly darkness reigned, and which abound- ed in waters; while in X, 73, 7, Indra by killing Namuchi, alias Vṛitra, is said to have cleared the gates of the Deva- yâna path, evidently meaning that Vṛitra was killed at the gates of the path leading to the region of the gods. Even in the Avesta, the fight between Apaosha and Tishtrya is said to have taken place in the sea of Vouru-Kasha, and Tishtrya is described as moving along the path made by Mazda after his fight with Apaosha. Vṛitra's abode is similarly described as 'hidden' and 'enveloped by water' at the bottom of rajas (I, 52, 6). None of these conditions is satisfied by making the storm-cloud, the scene of the battle between Indra and Vṛitra; for a cloud cannot be said to be the ocean of waters, nor can it be described as lying in a distant (parâvat) region, or at the threshold of the Devayâna or the path of the gods. In the Ṛig-Veda parâvat is usually contrasted with arâvat, and it means a distant region on the other side, as contrasted

252 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS. with the region on this or the nearer side. The Devayāna is similarly contrasted with the Pitṛiyāna, and means the north- ern celestial hemisphere. The clouds over the head of the ob- server cannot be said to be either in the distant region, or at the gate of the Devayāna; nor can we speak of them as en- veloped by sun-less darkness. It is, therefore, highly impro- bable that the rain-clouds could have been the scene of battle between Indra and Vṛitra. It was the sea on the other side, the dark ocean as contrasted with the bright ocean (shukram arṇaḥ) which the sun mounts in the morning, where the battle was fought according to the passages referred to above; and the description is appropriate only in the case of the nether world, the celestial hemisphere that lies underneath, and not in the case of clouds moving in the sky above. I do not mean to say that Indra may not have been the god of rain or thunder- storm, but as Vṛitrahan, or the killer of Vṛitra, it is impossible to identify him with the god of rain, if the description of the fight found in the Vedic passages is not to be ignored or set aside. The third objection to the current interpretation of the Vṛitra myth, is that it does not satisfactorily explain the pass- ages, which give the time of Indra's fight with the demon. On the Storm theory, the fight must be placed in the rainy season or Varshā; but the forts of Vṛitra, which Indra is said to have destroyed and thus acquired the epithet purabhid or purandara, are described in the Ṛig-Veda as autumnal or shāradīḥ i.e., belonging or pertaining to Sharad, the season which follows Varshā. The discrepancy may be accounted for, by supposing that Varshā and Sharad, were once included under one sea- son which was named not Varshā but Sharad. But the ex- planation is opposed to another passage in the Ṛig-Veda (X, 62, 2), which says that Vala was killed at the end of the year (parivatsare), unless we again suppose that the year com- menced with Sharad in those days. Nor can we explain how

VEDIC MYTHS—THE CAPTIVE WATERS. 253 Arbuda is said to be killed with hima (ice) by Indra. Again, as previously stated, the dawn could not be considered as a prize of the conflict, nor could the fight be said to have been fought in darkness, if we choose the rainy season as the time for the battle of Indra with Vṛitra. It will thus be seen that the Storm theory does not satisfactorily explain the statements regarding the time of the struggle between Indra and Vṛitra. The fourth objection against the Storm theory, as applied to the story of Vṛitra, is that many words like parvata, giri, or adri, which do not signify a cloud, either primarily or second- arily, have to be interpreted as referring figuratively to the rain- cloud. This sounds harsh in many a passage where Indra or Bṛihaspati is described as piercing a mountain or breaking open a stone-cave and liberating the waters or the cows confined there- in. In the absence of any other theory, we had to interpret these passages by the Storm theory, as the Nairuktas have done, by assigning to any and every word, used to denote the prison- house of waters or the cows, the meaning of a rain-cloud mov- ing in the sky. But though we could thus temporarily get over the difficulty, the fact, that we had to strain the words used, or to assign unnatural meanings to them, was always a drawback, which detracted from the value of our interpretation. It was probably for this reason that Prof. Oldenberg was led to suggest that Indra's piercing the mountain and liberating the waters there- from should be understood to refer not to the rain-cloud, but to the actual striking of the mountains with the thunder-bolt and making the rivers flow forth from them. But, as observed by Max Muller, “the rivers do not gush out of rocks even when they have been struck by lightning”; and so Prof. Oldenberg’s explanation, though it gets us out of one difficulty, lands us on another, which, to say the least, is equally puzzling. If we, there- fore, cannot suggest a better explanation, we might as well accept the device of the Nairuktas and interpret parvata or whatever

254 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS. other word or words may be found used to denote the place of the confinement of the waters, as meaning a cloud, and explain the legend of Vṛitra by the Storm theory as best as we can. It will be found from the feregoing discussion regarding the Storm theory as applied to the legend of Indra and Vṛitra, that it explains neither the simultaneous effects of Indra's conquest over Vṛitra, nor the statements regarding the seat of the battle between them, nor those regarding the time when it took place, nor again does it allow us to take the words, used in certain Vedic passages, in their natural sense ; and yet we find that the theory has been accepted as the basis of the legend from the times of the Nairuktas upto the present. Why should it be so?—is a question, which would naturally occur to any one, who examines the subject. It is true that the Storm theory fully explains the release of waters as a result of the fight ; but the release of waters is not the only consequence, which we have to account for. There are four simultaneous effects of the war, the release of the waters, the release of the cows, the recovery of the dawn and the production of the sun. The Storm theory explains the first two and the Dawn theory the last two of these ; but the whole set of four is explained by neither, nor could the theories be so combined as to explain all the four effects, unless, like Prof. Macdonell, we suppose that the Vedic bards have confused the two entirely different ideas, viz., the restoration of the sunlight after thunderstorm, and the re- covery of light from the darkness of night. Of the two theories, the Storm and the Dawn, the ancient Nairuktas, therefore, seem to have adopted that which adequately accounted for the release of the waters and which suited better with their notion of Indra as a thunder-god, on the principle that half a loaf is better than none, and have ignored the remaining incidents in the legend as inex- plicable, unimportant, or immaterial. The same theory has also been adopted by Western scholars, and it is the only theory in the

field at present. But it is so manifestly inadequate that if a better theory could be found which will explain most of, if not all, the incidents in the legend, no one would hesitate to aban- don the Storm theory in favour of the latter. It is, in my opinion, a mistake to suppose that the strug- gle between Indra and Vritra originally represented the con- flict between the thunder-god and the rain-cloud. It is really a struggle between the powers of light and darkness, and we find traces of it in the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa (IV, 5), where Indra alone of all gods is described as having undertaken the task of driving out Asuras from the darkness of the night. That Indra is the god of light is also evident from many other passages in the Ṛig-Veda, where, without any reference to the Vṛitra fight, Indra is said to have found the light (III, 34, 4; VIII, 15, 5; X, 43, 4) in the darkness (I, 100, 8; IV, 16, 4), or to have produced the dawn as well as the sun (II, 12, 7; 21, 4; III, 31, 15), or opened the darkness with the dawn and the sun (I, 62, 5). It was he, who made the sun to shine (VIII, 3, 6), and mount in the sky (I, 7, 3), or prepared a path for the sun (X, 111, 3), or found the sun in 'the darkness in which he resided' (III, 39, 5). It is evident from these pass- ages that Indra is the winner of light and the sun, and this character of his was well understood by scholars, for Indra as apavaryan, or the recoverer (fr. apa-vṛi) of light, is compared by Max Muller with Apollon in the Greek mythology. But scholars have found it difficult to explain why this character of Indra should be mentioned in conjunction with other exploits, such as the conquest of Vṛitra and the liberation of the waters. In fact that is the real difficulty in the explanation of the legend either by the Storm or by the Dawn theory. Indra liberated the waters and brought about the dawn by killing Vṛitra,—is undoubtedly the burden of the whole story; but no explanation has yet been found by which the simultaneous re- covery of light and waters could satisfactorily be accounted

256 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS. for. We have seen that by the Storm theory we can account for the release of waters, but not the recovery of the dawn; while if the legend is taken to represent a struggle between light and darkness, as implied by the Dawn theory, we can account for the recovery of the dawn and the sun, but not for the release of waters. Under these circumstances it is neces- sary to examine the nature and character of waters as des- cribed in the Vedas, before we accept or reject either or both of the above-mentioned theories. It has been noticed above that the passages, where waters are said to be released by Indra after killing Vṛitra do not refer expressly to the rain-cloud. The words parvata, giri, and the like are used to denote the place where the waters were con- fined, and āpaḥ, or sindhus, to denote the waters themselves. Now āpaḥ, or waters generally, are mentioned in a number of places in the Ṛig-Veda, and the word in many places denotes the celestial or aerial waters. Thus we are told that they follow the path of the gods, and are to be found beside the sun, who is with them (I, 23, 17). In VII, 49, 2, we have an express state- ment that there are waters, which are celestial (divyāḥ, āpaḥ), and also those that flow in earthly channels (khanitrimāḥ), thus clearly distinguishing between terrestrial and celestial waters. In the same verse they are said to have the sea or the ocean for the goal; and in VIII, 69, 12, the seven rivers are said to flow into the jaws of Varuṇa as into a surging abyss. Varuṇa again is described as the god, who, like Indra, makes the rivers flow (II, 28, 4); and we have seen that the sage Dīrghatamas is said to have been borne on the waters wending to their goal (I, 158, 6). But it is needless to cite more authorities on this point, for scho- lars are agreed that both celestial and terrestrial waters are mentioned in the Ṛig-Veda. The nature, the character, or the movements of celestial waters appear, however, to be very im- perfectly understood; and this is the sole reason why scholars

VEDIC MYTHS—THE CAPTIVE WATERS. 257 have not yet been able to connect the release of the waters with the recovery of the dawn in the Vṛitra legend. It seems to have been supposed that when the Ṛig-Veda speaks of the celestial waters (divyâḥ âpaḥ) only the rain-waters are intended. But this is a mistake ; for, in passages which speak of the crea- tion of the world ( X, 82, 6 ; 129, 3 ), the world is said to have once consisted of nothing but undifferentiated waters. In short, the Ṛig-Veda, like the Hebrew Testament, expressly states that the world was originally full of waters, and that there were the waters in the firmament above and waters below. The Shata- patha Brâhmaṇa (XI, 1, 6, 1), the Aitareya Upaniṣhad (I, 1,) and Manu (I, 9), all say that the world was created from watery vapours. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the idea of celestial waters was well-known to the ancestors of the Vedic bards in early days ; and as the celestial waters were conceived to be the material out of which the universe was created, it is probable that the Vedic bards understood by that phrase what the modern scientists now understand by ' ether ' or ' the nebulous mass of matter ' that fills all the space in the universe. We need not, however, go so far. It is enough for our purpose to know that the celestial waters (divyâḥ âpaḥ), or the watery vapours (purîsham), are mentioned in the Ṛig- Veda, and that the Vedic bards considered the space or the region above, below, and around them to be full of these celestial vapours which are said to be co-eval with the world in X, 30, 10. It is, however, alleged by Wallis in his Cosmology of the Ṛig-Veda (p. 115) that the Vedic bards were not acquainted with the regions below the earth, and that every thing, which is described in the Vedas as occurring in the atmosphere, in- cluding the movements of the sun during night and day, must be placed in the regions of the sky, which were over the head of these bards. This view appears to be adopted by Macdonell in his Vedic Mythology; and if it be correct, we shall have to 17

258 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS. place all the waters in the upper heaven. But I do not think that Wallis has correctly interpreted the passages quoted by Prof. Zimmer in support of his theory that a rajas (region) exists below the earth; and we cannot, therefore, accept Wallis' conclusions, which are evidently based upon prepossessions derived most probably from the Homeric controversy. Prof. Zimmer refers to three passages (VI, 9, 1 ; VII, 80, 1; V, 81, 4) to prove that a rajas beneath the earth was known to the Vedic people. The first of these passages is the well-known verse regarding the bright and the dark day. It says, " the bright day and the dark day, both roll the two rajas by the well-known paths." Here the two rajas are evidently the upper and the lower celestial hemisphere ; but Wallis asks us to compare this verse with I, 185, 1, where day and night are said "to revolve like two wheels," that is, to circle round from east to west, the one rising as the other goes down, and observes that " we are in no way obliged to consider that the progress of either is continued below the earth." I am unable to understand how we can draw such an inference from these passages. In VI, 9, 1, quoted by Zimmer, two rajas or atmospheres are mentioned, and the bright and the dark day are said to roll along both these rajas or regions. But if we hold with Wallis that the progress of either begins in the east and stops in the west, without going below the earth, the whole movement becomes confined to one rajas or region and does not extend over the two. Zimmer's interpretation is, there- fore, not only more probable, but the only one that explains the use of rajasî (in the dual), or the two regions, in the verse. The next passage (VII, 80, 1) is also misunderstood by Wallis. It describes the dawn as "unrolling the two regions (rajasî), which border on each other (samante), revealing all things." Now the dawn always appears on the horizon and the two rajas, which it unrolls and which are said to border on each other, must meet on this horizon. They can, therefore, only represent

VEDIC MYTHS—THE CAPTIVE WATERS. 259 the lower and the upper celestial sphere. But Wallis would have us believe that both these rajasī are above the earth, and that narrowing down together towards east and west they meet on the horizon like two arched curves over one's head ! The arti- ficial character of this explanation is self-evident, and I see no reason why we should adopt it in preference to the simple and natural explanation of Zimmer, unless we start with a precon- ceived notion that references to the regions below the earth ought not to be and cannot be found in the Ṛig-Veda. The third passage pointed out by Zimmer is V, 81, 4, which says “O Savitṛi ! Thou goest round (pariyase) the night, on both sides (ubhayataḥ).” Here Wallis proposes to translate pariyase by ‘en- compassest’; but pariyase ordinarily means ‘goest round,’ and there is no reason why the idea of motion usually implied by it should be here abandoned. It will thus be seen that the con- clusion of Wallis is based upon the distortion of passages which Zimmer interprets in a simpler and a more natural way ; and that Zimmer’s view is more in accordance with the natural meaning of these texts. But if an express passage be still need- ed to prove conclusively that the region below the earth was known to the Vedic bards, we refer to VII, 104, 11, where the bard prays for the destruction of his enemies and says, “Let him (enemy) go down below the three earths, (tisraḥ pṛithivīḥ adhaḥ).” Here the region below the three earths is expressly mentioned; and since the enemy is to be condemned to it, it must be a region of torment and pain like the Hades. In X, 152, 4, we read, “One, who injures us, let him be sent to the nether darkness (adharam tamaḥ),” and, comparing this with the last passage, it is evident that the region below the earth was concei- ved as dark. In III, 53, 21, we have, “Let him, who hates us, fall downwards (adharaḥ),” and in II, 12, 4, the brood of the Dasyu, whom Indra killed, is said to be “sent to the unknown nether world (adharam guhākaḥ).” These passages directly show that

260 THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS. region below the earth was not only known to the Vedic bards, but was conceived as filled with darkness, and made the scene of Indra's fight with Vṛitra. It may, however, be alleged that "below the three earths" may simply mean underneath the sur- face of the earth. But, in that case, it was not necessary to speak of all the three earths; and since we are told that the region is below all the three earths, it can refer only to the nether world. This is further proved by the passage which describes what is above the three earths. The expression, corresponding to tisraḥ pṛithivīḥ adhaḥ or "the region below the three earths," will be tisraḥ pṛithivīḥ upari or "the region above the three earths," and as a matter of fact this expression is also found in the Ṛig-Veda. Thus in I, 34, 8, we are told that "the Ashvins, moving above the three earths (tisraḥ pṛithivīḥ upari), protect the vault or the top of heaven (divo nākam) through days and nights"; and Ashvins are said to have come on their car from a distant region (parāvat) in the preceding verse of the same hymn. The phrase divo nākam occurs several times in the Ṛig-Veda and means the top or the vault of the heaven. Thus in IV, 13, 5, the sun is said to guard (pāti) the vault of the heaven (divo nākam); and as regards the three-fold division of the earth it is mentioned in several places in the Ṛig-Veda (I, 102, 8; IV, 53, 5; VII, 87, 5), and also in the Avesta (Yt. XIII, 3; Yasna, XI, 7). In IV, 53, 5, this three-fold division is further extended to antarikṣha, rajas, rochana and dyu or heaven. This shows what we are to understand by 'three earths.' It is the one and the same earth, regarded as three-fold; and since the Ashvins are described as protecting the vault of heaven by moving "above the three earths,' it is clear that in contrast with the vault above, a nether region, as far below the three earths as the heaven is above them, must have been conceived and denoted by the phrase "below the three earths," and that the latter expression did not merely mean an

VEDIC MYTHS—THE CAPTIVE WATERS. 261 interterranean ground. When we meet with two such phrases as the heaven "above the three earths," and the region "below the three earths," in the Ṛig-Veda, phrases, which cannot be mistaken or misunderstood, the hypothesis that the Vedic bards were not acquainted with the nether world at once falls to the ground. Mr. Wallis seems to think that since rajas is said to be divided three-fold, like the earth, and since the highest rajas is mentioned as the seat of waters, there is no scope in the Vedic division of rajas for a region beneath the earth; for the three rajas are exhausted by taking them as the rajas of the earth (pârthivam), the rajas of the sky (divo rajaḥ) and the highest (paramam) rajas, the seat of waters. But this objection is quite untenable, inasmuch as six different rajas are also mentioned in the Ṛig-Veda (I, 164, 6). We can, therefore, suppose that there were three rajas above the earth and three below it, and so meet the apparent difficulty pointed out by Wallis. The three rajas can in some places be also interpreted to mean the earthly rajas, the one above the earth and the one below it, (X, 82, 4,). In I, 35, 2, the Savitṛi is described as moving through the dark rajas (kṛiṣhṇena rajasâ), and in the next verse we are told that he comes from the distant (parâvat) region, which shows that the dark rajas and the parâvat region are synonymous, and that the sun ascends the sky after passing through the dark rajas. Again the use of the word 'ascend' (ud-yan or ud-âcharat, I, 163, 1; VII, 55, 7), to describe the rising of the sun in the morning from the ocean, shows, by contrast, that the ocean which the sun is said to enter at the time of setting (X, 114, 4) is really an ocean underneath the earth. In I, 117, 5, the sun is described as sleeping in "the lap of Nir-ṛiti," and "dwelling in darkness"; while in I, 164, 32 and 33, the sun is said to have travelled in the interior of heaven and earth and finally gone into Nir-ṛiti, or as Prof. Max Muller renders it, 'the exodus in the west.' Now, in X,

262 , THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS. 114, 2, there are three Nir-ṛitis mentioned, evidently corres- ponding to the three earths and three heavens; and in X, 161, 2, the lap of Nir-ṛiti is identified with the region of death. Purûravas is again said (X, 95, 14) to have gone to the distant region (param parāvatam) and there made his bed on the lap of Nir-ṛiti; while the Maruts are described as mounting up to the firmament from the bottom-less Nir-ṛiti in VII, 58, 1. All these passages taken together show that Nir-ṛiti, or the land of dis- solution and death, commenced in the west, that the sun lying in darkness travelled through the distant region (parāvat) and eventually rose in the east from the lap of Nir-ṛiti, and that the whole of this movement was placed not in the upper heaven, but on the other side of the vault through which the sun travel- led before he entered into Nir-ṛiti. ` In other words, the Nir-ṛitis extended below the earth from west to east; and since the region below the three earths is expressly mentioned in the Ṛig- Veda, the three Nir-ṛitis must be understood to mean the three regions below the earth corresponding to the three-fold division of the earth or of the heaven above it. Zimmer is, therefore, correct in stating that the sun moved through the rajas below the earth during night and that the Vedic poets knew of this nether rajas. There are other passages in the Ṛig-Veda which fully sup- port the same view. Thus corresponding to the rajasī, or the two rajas, we have another expression in the dual, namely, ubhau ardhau, which literally denotes 'the two halves,' and when applied to heaven, 'the two celestial hemispheres.' The expression ardhau occures in II, 27, 15, and the two halves are there asked to be propitious to the sacrificer. Wallis, however, interprets ubhau ardhau to mean 'heaven and earth.' But this is a mistake for there is a passage in the Ṛig-Veda where we have the phrases pare ardhe (in the farther half) and upare ardhe (in the nearer half) of heaven (divaḥ), showing that the heaven alone (and not heaven and

VEDIC MYTHS—THE CAPTIVE WATERS. 263 earth) was conceived as divided into two halves (I, 164, 12). A few verses later on (I, 164, 17), the cow with her calf (the dawn with the sun) is described as having appeared below the upper and above the lower realm, i. e., between heaven and earth, and a question is then asked "To what half (ardham) has she departed?" which again shows that the (ardham) here referred to is quite distinct from heaven and earth. In the Atharva Veda, X, 8, 7 and 13, the 'two halves' are refer- red to, and the poet asks, "Prajâpati with one half (ardham) engendered all creation; what sign is there to tell us of the other half?" Here the other half cannot mean the earth; and Griffith accordingly explains it as referring to the sun at night. Another expression used to denote the upper and the lower world is samudrau, or the two oceans, (X, 136, 5). These two oceans are said to be one on this side (avara) and one on the other (para) side in VII, 6, 7; and a yonder ocean (parâvati samudre) is mentioned in VIII, 12, 17. I have al- ready quoted above the passages which speak of the bright arṇaḥ or ocean (V, 45, 10), and of arṇava or an ocean pervaded with darkness (II, 23, 18). The two words parastât and avastât are also employed to convey the same idea. They de- note a region on the nearer side and a region on the farther side. Thus in VIII, 8, 14, parâvat region is contrasted with ambara or the heaven above, and in III, 55, 6, the sun is des- cribed as sleeping in the parâvat region. We have seen above that Savitṛi is said to come up from the parâvat region, and that he moves through the dark region before ascending the sky. The two words parâvat and arvâvat thus separately denote the same regions that are jointly denoted by the dual words rajasî, ardhau or samudrau; and when both the upper and the lower hemispheres were intended the word ubhayataḥ was employed. Thus in III, 53, 5, we read, "O Maghavan! O brother Indra! go beyond (parâ) and come hither (â), you are wanted in both places, (ubhayatra)." The passages where