A critical attitude toward Sāyaṇa developed when comparative philology in the middle of the nineteenth century discovered that a number of the etymologies offered by the old commentators were incorrect. Outstanding, among others, was R. Roth, who together with O. Boethlingk compiled the famous
St. Petersburg Dictionary
in which Vedic words were interpreted by comparing the context of all the places in which a given word occurred.
12
Whereas Sāyaṇa had given different meanings for the same word in different contexts, Roth tried to establish the one original meaning. Roth’s method agreed with the established standards of scientific philology which could look back to several centuries of critical study of classical Latin, Greek, and Hebrew texts. Under his inspiration many scholars took up the task of editing and translating the Vedas.
13
R. T. H. Griffith, who made use of some of these translations, remarks in his own version that “many hymns are dark as the darkest oracle.”
14
K. F. Geldner, in the admittedly best translation of the entire
Ṛgveda
into a modern European language, concedes at many places that the meaning of a certain word or the translation of a certain phrase is doubtful, dark, or conjectural.
15
European interest in the Veda awakened also Indian Vedic scholars. Some accepted the naturalistic interpretations, going even further than Western Indologists by giving the Veda a peculiar metereological, or bio-neurological, or physical interpretation;
16
others reacted sharply against these interpretations.
Dayānanda Saraswati and his followers in the Ārya Samāj became the founders of a new school of Vedic interpretation.
17
The Veda was considered the absolute culmination of religious and scientific thought; in the mystico-scientific interpretations of this school the Veda is supposed to contain all modern scientific discoveries, technical inventions, philosophical insights, and mystical perfection. Some scholars associated with the Ārya Samāj go so far as to accuse Western Indologists of mischievously underplaying the age and importance of the Veda, of arrogantly neglecting the Veda’s own testimony regarding its divine origin, and of failing to understand its real meaning.
18
Others, like V S. Agrawala, made studies of the symbolism contained in certain Vedic hymns and thus contributed to a deeper understanding of the complexity of Vedic religion.
19
Aurobindo Ghose and his school took a different approach. Doubtlessly inspired by the prevailing trend in Western psychology, Aurobindo came to the following conclusion with regard to the Veda: “The
ṛṣis
arranged the substance of their thought in a system of parallelisms by which the same deities were at once internal and external powers of universal Nature, and they managed its expression through a system of double values by which the same language served for their worship in both aspects. But the psychological sense predominates and is more pervading, close-knit and coherent than the physical. The Veda is primarily intended to serve for spiritual enlightenment and self-culture.”
20
Aurobindo’s criticism of the naturalist-evolutionist type of Western Veda interpretation seems harsh, but justified: “Comparative mythology is the creation of Hellenists interpreting un-Hellenic data from a standpoint which is itself founded on a misunderstanding of the Greek mind.”
21
Modern Western Indology has moved closer toward traditional Indian ideas.
22
A deeper study of history, language, and religion has convinced most that the old commentators, though not perfect from every point of view, are indispensable guides for the correct understanding of the hymns, and that they preserved much of an uninterrupted tradition. Nineteenth-century rationalism, evolutionism, scientism, and historicism has largely been overcome and the study of religions has led to a new understanding of the meaning of myth and symbols.
23
R. N. Dandekar’s view is the most appealing: the Ṛgvedic gods, he contends, are created for the myths and not the myths for the gods. Mythology is primary and the gods secondary, that is, the Vedic
ṛṣis
had a message which they conveyed in images for which they created the concrete figures of the gods. Thus it becomes understandable that Vedic mythology is essentially evolutionary. The character of a certain god in a certain environment undergoes a change with a change of the environment. Much more important than the changing figure of a specific god was the basic underlying potency of which the individual gods were mere expressions and manifestations. The Vedic counterpart of this
mana
power is the
asura:
the essential character of the Vedic gods is that they are
asuras
. This power is shared by all beings: by moving and unmoving ones, by plants, animals, men, and gods. The anthropomorphism of the Vedic gods is highly variable, and there is neither a fixed hierarchy nor, strictly speaking, a “pantheon” of Vedic gods in the sense in which there is a Greek or Roman pantheon. Seeing Vedic religion from this new perspective makes it much easier to understand the development of the Upaniṣads and later Indian religions.
24
Agni
, “Fire,” is for the Vedic
ṛṣi
not simply the chemical process of carbonization of organic matter which a modern, scientifically trained person would connect with the word “fire”; there is also a transcendent aspect in it, a hint at something beyond the material reality investigated by chemistry.
Agni
is a
deva
– not a “personification of a natural phenomenon,” but the manifestation of a transcendent power. The physical reality of fire is so obvious and so necessary that the Vedic
kavi
(seer-poet) does not think of denying it or spiritualizing it away. The
kavi
is more than a mere observer of natural phenomena registered by the senses – he is “inspired” to feel and express the mystery behind all concrete reality.
THE VEDIC INDRA RELIGION
25
Indra is the
deva
to whom most of the hymns of the
Ṛgveda
are addressed. A wealth of epithets is given to him to express his importance and describe his nature.
26
But no single trait figures more prominently than his being
vṛtrahan,
27
the slayer of
vṛtra
. As R. N. Dandekar points out, “Vedic mythology is essentially an ‘evolutionary’ mythology. At different stages in the evolution of the Vedic mythological thought it has been dominated by different gods and the Indra-dominated mythology represents but a late stage in the course of that evolution.” The Ṛgvedic Indra shows three different components: Indra as cosmic power; Indra as a warlike leader of the Āryans; Indra as ancient mythical dragon-killing hero. “Most of the descriptions of Indra are centred round the war with, and subsequent victory over, Vṛtra. This is by far the most outstanding event in Indra’s career. A proper understanding of this point would, therefore, serve as an adequate starting point for a critical study of Indra’s personality and character.”
28
The Indra-V
ṛ
tra Myth
Ko vṛtraḥ?
asks Yāska.
29
Who is Vṛtra? He knows already of a twofold interpretation. The Aitihāsikas consider Vṛtra, the son of Tvaṣṭṛ, to be a demon. The Nairuktās see in him a cloud. Thus we have from early times a mythico-historical and a naturalistic-rationalistic interpretation, not only of Vṛtra, but also of the Indra-Vṛtra myth. According to the first interpretation, the Indra-Vṛtra battle is a fight between god and demon. According to the latter, it is the description of a thunderstorm. These two interpretations have been followed variously by subsequent interpreters. Sāyaṇa interprets Vṛtra as the cloud which holds back the water. But he mentions an interpretation, which he does not accept, that Vṛtra is the “coverer” who holds back from humans the objects of their desire and their aspirations.
30
R. N. Dandekar attributes the personification of both Vṛtra and Vṛtrahan to the temperament of the warlike Āryan tribes.
Corresponding to this deification of the human Indra, there took place the demonization of the human Vṛtra. At this later stage of the Ṛgvedic mythology the historical human Vṛtras were collectively transformed into the one “demon” who prominently opposed Indra, the great god. And still later, when naturalistic elements came to be superimposed upon Indra’s original personality as the result of which Indra came to be regarded as the rain-god, there was a corresponding naturalistic transformation of Vṛtra’s personality so that he came to be looked upon as the cloud-demon.
In a note he adds that “it would thus be clear that Vṛtra originally represented neither the cloud, as suggested by the Nairuktās, nor the demon-son of Tvaṣṭṛ, as suggested by the Aitihāsikas.”
31
With the identification of Indra with the hero of the ancient universal dragon-myth, the growth of the personality of the Ṛgvedic Indra had found its fulfillment.
32
The titles given to Indra –
magkavān, makāvīra, deva, eka, rāja
, etc. -are essential attributes of the High God. The same titles are given to the Saviour God in later times.
Vṛtra is not one of many enemies, not one of many natural phenomena, but he is the sum total of evils. Not only he, but also his mother, the source of all evils, is destroyed by the saving god and the “cows” and the “waters” – words which have again a wealth of meaning in the Vedic religious context – are set free. Śrī Aurobindo sees in the “cows” the key to the meaning of the whole
Ṛgveda:
“cows” stands for truth. Even if we accept a less spiritualistic interpretation, “cows” and “waters” stand here definitely for something which was of vital importance for the Vedic people and Indra is credited with having helped them to obtain it.
33
Vedic religion was dominated by a belief in supernatural powers, good and bad, to which every phenomenon was ascribed. The feeling of fear and uneasiness in certain situations in which no clearly visible agent was perceptible was ascribed to the influence of demons – the relief from danger and fear was the work of a god. Throughout the history of Indian religions it was always only the Supreme God who was able to defeat the king of the demons. Later reinterpretations of the Indra-Vṛtra myth, in which Indra had first to obtain Viṣṇu’s, Śiva’s, or Devī’s own power in order to be able to slay Vṛtra, prove quite conclusively that the Indra who, without aid, was able to slay Vṛtra together with his mother was the Supreme God saving the world from evil.
Historical events seem to be alluded to in
Ṛgveda
I, 51, 5ff., where Indra is praised for having broken down Pipru’s forts, for helping Rjiśvān, saving Kutsa, and for having “mighty Arbuda trodden down under foot.”
Similarly in
Ṛgveda
I, 53, 8ff. we read of Indra striking down Karañja and Parṇaya, of his destroying the hundred forts of Vaṅgṛda, of his “overthrowing the twice ten Kings of men with sixty thousand nine-and ninety followers, who came in arms to fight with friendless Suśravas.” Indra is praised for having protected Suśravas and Turvayāna, and “making Kutsa, Atithigva, Ayu subject unto this king, the young, the mighty.”
In
Yajurveda
and
Atharvaveda
, “the prayerbook of the simple folk, haunted by ghosts,”
34
representing a tradition as old as that of the
Ṛgveda
, the exorcism of demons plays a very important role. Demons do not have fixed abodes; they inhabit caves, crossroads, desolate places.
35
The
Ṛgveda
mentions many groups of demons: Rakṣasās, Yatus, Piśācās, Ārātris, Druhs. “They are spirits which possess men, kidnap children, spread disease, cause earthquakes and lunar eclipses and evil dreams.”
36
It also mentions many individual demons, apart from Vṛtra: Arbuda, Śuṣṇa, Śaṃbara, Pipru, Dhuni-Chumuri, Urana, Varcin, Namuci, Makha. Battling demons is a task for gods, not for men; defeating the supreme demon is a feat which can be accomplished only by the highest god. Indeed, it is through this act of vanquishing the arch-enemy that he gains supremacy over all.
“They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni and he is heavenly winged Garutmān. To what is One, sages give many a title ...”
37
It is said that he does not age, that he had been of age as soon as he was born, that he is always young, mighty, and powerful, that he is the son of
ojas
. Omniscience and omnipresence are attributed to him. Above all, he is the slayer of Vṛtra, the serpent from the depth, the great demon. That is the feat which made him what he is: the Supreme Saviour. Thus
Vṛtrakan
is not only a title; it is his essence. The one who slays
Vṛtra
, who covered heaven and earth, is “Lord of Heaven and Earth” – he is Indra. “Vṛtra he quelled and gave men room and freedom.”
38
Early Interpretations of the myth
VEDĀ
Ṅ
GAS
Yāska in his
Nirukta
refers to two interpretations of Vṛtra. He himself prefers the naturalistic one: Vṛtra is a cloud – Indra pierces the clouds and lets the waters flow. But he also often refers to Indra as the destroyer of demons. More interesting for our purpose is the
Bṛhaddevatā
ascribed to Śaunaka; this text belongs to the class of
Anukramāṇis
or “Vedic Indices,” in which for the first time a certain system of Vedic theology is attempted. A certain sacerdotal influence is visible as well as an attempt to establish a hierarchy of gods. Apart from the list of gods, the
Bṛhaddevatā
offers myths in short forms.
The most interesting portion in the
Bṛhaddevatā
, however, is its explanation of the nature of Indra. It declares the sun as identical with Prajāpati, the imperishable Brahman, the source of all being. Everything is just a particle of this One. “Because taking up fluids with his rays, accompanied by Vāyu, he rains upon the world, he is termed Indra.”
39
Indra is one of the names of the High God. In the system of gods of the
Bṛhaddevatā
, Indra is the name for the manifestation of God in the middle sphere.