10 RIBHUS AND VRISHAKAPI

Contents

• Knowledge of astronomy in Vedic times
• The seasons and the year
• The ayanas
• The zodiacal belt or r̥ta
• Observation of a total eclipse of the sun in the R̥gveda
• Knowledge of the planets Shukra and Manthin
• Venus and Vena, Shukra and Kupris
• The legend of the r̥bhus
• Their identification with the r̥tus or the seasons of the year
• Their sleep or rest in Agohya’s (sun’s) house for 12 intercalary days
• said to be awakened by dog (Rig. 1. 161. 13) at the end of the year
• Indicates the commencement of the year with the dog-star
• Nature and character of Vr̥ṣākapi
• His identification with the sun at the autumnal equinox
• The hymn of Vr̥ṣākapi in the R̥gveda x. 80
• Its Meaning discussed verse by verse
• Cessation and commencement of sacrifices on the appearance and disappearance of Vr̥ṣākapi in the form of a Mr̥ga
• Indrāṇī cuts off his head and sets a dog at his ear
• Orion (Mr̥gaśiras) and Canis
• Meaning of nedīyas in the Vedic literature.
• When Vr̥ṣākapi enters the house of indra, his Mr̥ga becomes invisible (Rig *. 86.22.)
• Points to the vernal equinox in Orion or Mr̥gam
• Leading incidents in the story stated and explained.

Knowledge of astronomy in Vedic times

It is said that we cannot suppose that the Vedic bards were acquainted even with the simplest motions of heavenly bodies. The statement, however, is too general and vague to be criticised and examined. If it is intended to be understood in the sense that the complex machinery of observation which the modern astronomers possess and the results which they have obtained thereby were unknown in early days, then I think there cannot be two opinions on that point. But if by it is meant that the Vedic poets were ignorant of everything except the sun and the dawn, ignorant of the Nakṣatras, ignorant of month, ayanas, years and so on, then there is no authority or support for such a supposition in the R̥gveda.

On the contrary, we find that some of the Nakṣatras are specifically named, such as Arjunī and Aghā in Rig. X. 85. 13, while the same hymn speaks generally of the Nakhatras, and the motions of the moon and the suo as causing the seasons.

In Rig. i. 164 we have again several references to the seasons, the year and the number of days contained in it (verse 48) and according to Yāska, perhaps to the ayanas ( Nirukta 7. 24 ).

I have in a previous chapter referred to the passages in the R̥gveda, which mention the Devayāna and the Pitr̥yāna, the old names of the ayanas beginning with the vernal equinox; and there is therefore, no objection to understand the above verse (i. 164. 48) as alluding to the black or the Pitr̥yāna.

Zodiac

The intercalary month is mentioned in Rig. i.25.8, while in i.24.8 Varuṇa is said to have constructed a broad path for the sun, which appears evidently to refer to the Zodiacal belt. I am further inclined to think that the path of r̥ta (Rig. i. 41. 4) which is mentioned several times in the R̥gveda, where the Adityas are said to be placed (x. 85. 1), and wherein Saramā discovered the cows of Indra (v. 46, 7, 8 ) refers to the same broad belt of the Zodiac(5) which the luminaries, as observed by the Vedic bards, never transgressed. It was so to speak their ‘right’ way, and therefore called r̥ta, which though literally derived from r̥ to go, soon came to mean the ‘right’, path the circle of which exists for ever++(5), or rather exists and exists ( varvarti) in the vault of the heavens (Rig. i. 164, 11 ).

Prof. Ludwig goes further and holds that the R̥gveda mentions the inclination of the ecliptic with the equator (i. 110. 2) and the axis of the earth (x. 89. 4).

It is now generally admitted that the seven r̥kshas were also known and named at this time. The mention of a hundred physicians in Rig. i.24.9 may again be taken to represent the asterism of Shata-bhiṣak or Shata-tāraka, presided over by Varuṇa according to the later lists of the Nakṣatras in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa.

Eclipse

The fortieth hymn in the fifth Mandala of the R̥gveda is still more important in this connection. It shows that an eclipse of the sun was then first observed with any pretensions to accuracy by the sage Atri. It is thus that I understand the last verse in the hymn which, after describing the eclipse, says, “Atri alone knew him (the sun) none else could.”

* Prof. Ludwig has tried to deduce the date of the hymn from this circumstance. But the attempt is a failure as shewn by Prof. Whitney (see the Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, Vol. XII. pp. 1722) As the eclipses recur in the same order after a certain period, we cannot use such facts for chronological purposes without knowing the geographical position of the place where the eclipse occurred, and even then the conclusion will be correct only if it can be shown on independent grounds that such a phenomenon did not occur at that place during several centuries before or after the date we determine. I, therefore, simply use the hymn for the purpose of showing that an eclipse of the sun was observed in those days in such a way as to leave a record behind. It would be difficult to deduce any other reliable conclusion from it even upon the assumption, not known and hence not used by Prof. Ludwig, that the vernal equinox was then in Orion and that the eclipse occurred three days before the autumnal equinox as described in the Brāhmaṇas. I cannot, however, accept the suggestion that the hymn may be understood as referring to the obscuration of the sun by clouds.

This observation of the solar eclipse is noticed in the śānkhyāyana (24. 3) and also in the Taṇdya Brāhmaṇa (iv. 5. 2; 6. 14), in the former of which it is said to have occurred three days previous to the Viṣūvān (the autumnal equinox). The observation thus appears to have attracted considerable attention in those days. It seems to have been a total eclipse of the sun, and the stars became visible during the time, for I so interpret the expression, bhuvanāni adīdhayuh in verse 5. In verse 6 we are told that “Atri knew (the eclipsed sun) by turiya brahma,” and Sāyaṇa interprets the last two words to mean “the fourth verse or mantra.” But the verse wherein these words occur is itself the sixth, and Sāyaṇa has to explain that by “fourth” is to be understood the " fourth, if we count from the sixth, ie, the tenth verse!" The explanation may be good from the ritualistic point of view, but it appears to me to be quite unsatisfactory otherwise. I would rather interpret turiyeṇa brahmanā to mean “by means of turiya."(5) Turiya is mentioned in modern astronomical works as a name for an instrument called quadrant (Siddhānta Shiromani x. 15), and though we may not suppose the same instrument to have existed in the old Vedic days, yet there seems to be no objection to hold that it may have meant some instrument of observation. The word brahma is no doubt used to denote a mantra, but it may also mean knowledge or the means of acquiring such knowledge. In Rig. ii. 2. 7 Sāyaṇa has himself interpreted brahma to mean some “act or action;” and I see no reason why we should not under. stand the phrase turiyeṇa brahmanā in the above hymn to mean “by the action of turiya,” or, in other words, “by means of turiya,” and thus give to the whole hymn a simple and natural appearance, rather than endeavour to interpret it after the manner of the Red Indians, who believed that Columbus averted the calamity of the eclipse by prayers. The peasants of the Vedic times, some scholars might argue, cannot be considered to be more civilized than the Red Indians; but in so arguing they forget the fact that there must be a Columbus, who would, by his superior capacity, inspire the feelings of awe and reverence for him. When the bards, therefore, tell us that Atri knew of the eclipse by turiya brahma, we can now easily see what it means. Sāyaṇa’s explanation, as I have above observed, may be good from the ritualistic standpoint ; but we cannot, for other purposes, accept an interpretation which makes the fourth to mean the ’tenth’ verse of the hymn ! Thus understood the hymn clearly indicates that at the time when the observation was taken the Vedic priests were tolerably well acquainted with the elementary astronomical facts.

Planets

It is, however, suggested that the planets were unknown in these days. I am unable to accept even this statement. It is impossible to suppose that the Vedic poets, who constantly watched and observed the various Nakṣatras in the Zodiac, should not have noticed planets like Venus, Jupiter, or Saturn, which outshine many of the Nakṣatras in brilliancy. The periodical appearance of Venus in the west and the east, and especially its rising only to a certain altitude followed by its regress, are facts too striking to remain unnoticed even by the superficial observers of the heaven. But we must not go on mere probabilities. The hymns of the R̥gveda are before us, and though probabilities may serve the purpose of determining the direction of our search, yet if we cannot find any reference to the planets in the Vedic works themselves we must give up the notion that they were known to the poets of these hymns.

There is no question that planets were known in the days of the Brāhmaṇas. In the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (iii. 1. 1.5) we are told that Brihaspati (Jupiter) was first born near the asterism of Tiṣya, and to this day the conjunction of Tishya and Jupiter is considered as highly auspicious in the astrological works.
* बृह॒स्पति॑ᳶ प्रथ॒मञ् जाय॑मानः। ति॒ष्य॑न्नक्ष॑त्रम् अ॒भि सम्ब॑भूव। This reminds us of Rig. iv. 50. 4, where similar wording occurs, thua: Fyld: प्रथमं जायमानो महो ज्योतिषः परमे व्योमन् ।

We have, however, to look for any allusion to the planets in the R̥gveda itself. The mention of the five bulls in Rig. i. 105. 10 may not be considered as sufficiently explicit to denote the five planets (* Cf, Rig. i. 162. 18; X. 55. 8. Also see Kaegi’s R̥gveda ( translated by Arrowsmith ), p. 20, and note 67 on page 115. I hold tbat the planets were not only known, but some of them at least had alruady received their names by this time.); but what shall we say to the mention of Shukra and Manthin together in Rig. iii. 32. 2 and ix. 46. 4 ? They seem to be evident references to the vessels called Shukra and Manthin used in sacrifices and have been so interpreted by the commentators. But as I have before observed, the vessels in the sacrifice themselves appear to have derived their names from the heavenly bodies and deities known at the time.++(5) It is generally conceded that the sacrificial arrangements more or less represent the motions of the sun (+ See Dr. Haug’s Intr, Ait. Br., p. 46. ) and the chief events of the year. In other words, the yearly sacrifice is nothing but a symbolical representation or rather imitation of the sun’s yearly course. If so, it is natural to suppose that some of the sacrificial vessels at least were named after the Nakṣatras and the planets. In the Taittirīya saṁhitā iii 1. 6. 3. the vessels are spoken of as ’the vessels of Shukra,’ ’the vessels of Manthin,’ and 80 on, which indicates that Shukra and Manthin were not used as adjectives of the vessels. The only other explanation is to suppose that Shukra, Manthin, āgrayaṇa, &c, were the names of Suma juice, and that the vessels used for holding that juice in its various capacities, were described as the vessels of Shukra, &c. There is, however, no authority in the sacrificial literature for holding that Soma really had so many and such different capacities; and I therefore conclude that the mention of Shukra and Manthin, as applied to vessels, in the R̥gveda is a clear indication of the planets being then discovered.

There is, however, in my opinion, a more explicit reference to a planet in the R̥gveda which does not seem to have yet been noticed. In the tenth Mandala we have a hymn (123) dedicated to Vena which according to Yāska denotes a deity of the middle region. Yāska (Nirukta 10. 38) derives the word from ven ’to love,’ to desire,’ and explains it as denoting, as his commentator Durgacharya says, “loved by all;”* (See Mahīdhara on Vaj. San, 7. 16. Some consider that the root is Vin and not Ven. ) while the hymn itself contains such expressions as the “son of the sun,” “on the top of r̥ta,” “comes out of the ocean like a wave,” † († This reminds one of the tradition of Aphrodite who, in Greek mythology, is said to be sprung from the foam of the sea. ) &c., which have been variously interpreted by the commentators. But from all these facts I think we have herein the original Aryan name of Venus. The word, or rather the meaning I have here proposed, is entirely lost in the Sanskrit literature, but considering the fact that the Latins named the planet as Venus, while the word cannot be satisfactorily derived from any Latin root, I there can be no objection to identify Venus with the Vena (nom. sin. Venas) in the Vedic works. (In Dr White’s Latin English Dictionary the word is derived from Sanskrit van to love; but if it is to be derived from a Sanskrit root why not derive it from vin or ven to desire or love, and so connect it with Vena of the R̥gveda.) In the Latin mythology Venus is the goddess of love, and this we can now easily account for, as the name of the Vedic deity is derived from a root which means “to desire,” “to love.” I may again point out that the hymn of Vena in the R̥gveda, is used in sacrifices at the time, when the priest takes up the vessel Shukra in the sacrificial ceremonies.* (• See Durgacharya on Nirukta 10.39, शुक्रो ग्रहो ऽनया गृह्यते.)

Kātyāyana, indeed, mentions the optional use of the hymn for taking up the vessel of Manthin. But that does not much alter the position, for, when the meaning of the word was utterly forgotten the hymn might come to be used for a different purpose in addition to the previous one. (The Sūtras of Kātyāyana bearing on this point are as follows:– (See Kat. Shr, Su, ix. 6. 11-19) शुक्रं वैन्येन वा “तं प्ररथे"ति। “अयं वेन” इत्येके। मन्थिनम् “अयं वेन” इति। Thus he first lays down that the Shukra vessel be taken by reciting the hymn तं प्ररथा (Vaj San. 1. 13) or according to some the hymn “अयं वेनः”. (Vaj. San 7, 16. Rig x. 123). He then observes that this latter hymn is used in taking up the Manthin vessel.) The fact, that the Vena hymn was used in taking up the Shukra vessel is, therefore, an important indication of its old meaning, and when we find the name actually preserved till now indicating the planet Venus, and that this name cannot be satisfactorily derived in any other way, we might fairly infer that Vena of the R̥gveda is Venus of the Latin mythology.

As regards the change of gender we need not consider it to be a serious objection inasmuch as not only Venus, but also the moon has changed in gender in its passage to Europe. As a further proof of the statement that the planets, or at any rate Shukra, was discovered and Damed in the primitive period, I refer to the Greek word Kupris (Latin Cypris) which means Venus. The word can be easily identified with Sanskrit Shukra which, according to the well-established phonetic rules, becomes Kupros in Greek, the initial sh being changed to k, as in Sk. Shvan, Gk. kuon and the medial kr to pr by labialisation, cf. Gk. priamai, Sk. krī-ṇāmi, I purchase. As Venus was supposed to be a feminine deity in Europe Kupros was naturally changed into Kupris. Thus, both the Latin and the Greek names of the deity may be traced back to the Vedic Vena and Shukra, and we may therefore hold that the planet was discovered and named before these races separated. I know that European lexicologists derive Kupris from Kupros the Greek name of the island of Cyprus where Venus was said to be much worshipped and that Cyprus again is supposed to have received its name from the trees, cypresses, in which it abounds ! But the explanation, which gives no derivation for the name of the tree, seems to me to be quite unsatisfactory. If Aphrodite was known to the Greeks in the primitive times it is more natural to derive the name of the island from the name of the deity. In course of time this original connection between the name of the deity and that of the island may have been forgotten, and Greek writers regarded Kupris as born in Cyprus. But we must receive these derivations of Greek mythological proper names with great caution as most them have been suggested at a time when comparative Philology and comparative Mythology were unknown. Latin cuprum meaning ‘copper’ is again said to be derived from Cyprus (Gk. Kupros), but it does not affect our argument, for whatever be the reason for giving the name to the island, once it was damed Cyprus or Kupros, many other words may be derived from it without any reference to the reasons for which the island was so called.

Summary of astronomical knowledge

Some of the reasons given above may be doubtful, but on the whole I am inclined to hold that the Vedic Rishis were not as ignorant of the broad astronomical facts as they are sometimes represented to be. They seem to have watched and observed the sun and the moon during their yearly course, noted the bearing of the motions on the division of time, fixed the length of the solar year and endeavoured to make the lunar correspond with it.

The Nakṣatras and their rising and setting also appear to have been duly observed. It was perceived that the sun and the moon and such of the planets as they had discovered never travelled out of a certain belt in the heavens, called r̥ta ; while the eclipses of the sun and the moon also received due attention and notice.

Men, who were acquainted with these facts, would naturally be able to fix the beginning of the months and the year by the stars that rose at the time, and though we cannot suppose the Vedic bards to have been in the possession of any accurate astronomical instruments, yet it was not difficult for them to decide roughly by simple observation when the day aod the night were equal, or when the sun turned to the north, either from the solstitial or from the equinoctial point. The knowledge implied by these observations may appear to be too much for a Vedic poet in the opinion of those who have formed their notions of primitive humanity from the accounts of savages in Africa or the Islands of the Pacific. But as observed before we must give up these ‘a priori’ notions of primitive humanity in the face of evidence supplied by the hymns of the R̥gveda. It is on this evidence that we have to form our judgment of the primitive Aryan civilization, and if that evidence is found conflicting with our prepossessions, the latter must be given up. In what follows I shall therefore assume the capacity of a Vedic bard to make the simple observations above mentioned.

Dog waking the Rbhus

We shall now take up the verse in the R̥gveda, referred to several times previously, the verse, which declares that a dog awakened the r̥bhus at the end of the year. (Rig. i. 161. 13); and the first question that arises in this connection is, who are the r̥bhus?

Referring to Nirukta (11. 15 and 16) we find that native scholars consider that the three r̥bhus - r̥bhu, Vibhvan and Vāja – were the sons of Sudhanvan and that having rendered wonderous services to the Gods they gained divine honors and a share in the sacrifice and immortality.* (* Also compare Brihad-devatā iii. 81. 88; p. 82, Cal. Ed., where the same story is given.) But even Yāska does not seem to be satisfied with this explanation. There are several hymns in the R̥gveda wherein the deeds of the r̥bhus are described (Rig, iv 33-37; i. 20. 110. 111 and 161), and in most of them the r̥bhus are spoken of as working in close connection with the year (samvatsim or samvatsa). Thus in the R̥gveda i. 110, 1. they are said to have commenced work at the end of the year, and in iv. 33, 4. they are described as engaged, for the whole year (saṁvatsara), in reviving the cows (the rays of the sun).(5)

The r̥bhus are further mentioned as resting in the house of Agohya, the “unconcealable” sud-god for twelve days at the end of their course (Rig. iv, 33, 7). In Ait. Br. iii. 30 they are described as sun’s neighbours or pupils (ante vāsits); while in Rig. iv. 51. 6 their work is said to be done by the dawn. Yāska therefore considers that the r̥bhus also represented the rays of the sun, and in this he is followed by Sāyaṇa. But the explanation does not account for the number of the r̥bhus who are said to be three brothers. We must therefore go a step further and hold that the r̥bhus did not merely represent the rays of the sun generally, but the three seasons, as connected with them, as several European scholars have suggested. († See Kaegi’s R̥gveda, p, 37, aod note 127 oo page 133. Particularly see Ludwig’s Rig iii., pp. 187 9.)

In the R̥gveda iv. 34. 2, the r̥bhus are told to rejoice with the seasons (r̥tus) and this supports the latter view. In Rig. i. 10. 10, Draviṇoda is said to be the fourth companion of the seasons and the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (xiv. 1. 1. 28) expressly states that there are three seasons. It is therefore generally believed that this was the old division of the year, and that the number of the seasons was increased as the Aryas travelled further from their original home.(5 • Kaegi’s Rigveda, p. 116, note 68, where he quotes Zimmer to the same effect.) The three r̥bhus, representing the three seasons, may thus be said to be engaged, throughout the whole year, in doing wonders for the gods and received as guests in the house of Agohya at the end of their course. “Here they spend twelve days in enjoyment; then the course begins anew, and anew the earth brings forth fruit, the streams flow; plants cover the heights, and waters the depths.” (+ This is in substance a translation of Rig. i. 161. 11 And iv. 39. 4. See Kaegi’s R̥gveda, p 37. ) And now comes the verse (Rig. i. 161, 13) on which I rely:

सु॒षु॒प्वांस॑ ऋभव॒स् तद् अ॑पृच्छ॒ता"गो॑ह्य॒ क इ॒दं नो॑ अबूबुधत्" ।
श्वानं॑ ब॒स्तो बो॑धयि॒तार॑म् अब्रवीत्, संवत्स॒र इ॒दम् अ॒द्या व्य॑ख्यत ॥ १.१६१.१३

Here the r̥bhus, awakened from their sleep and rest for twelve days, ask “Agohya! Who is it that awakened us?” The goat (the sun) replies that “it is the “hound.” Sāyaṇa understands shvānam to mean ‘wind’, but there is no authority for it and the meaning is perfectly unnatural. In fact Sāyaṇa may be said to have failed to interpret the verse correctly. (Idam in the first line is not the object of abūbudhat as Sāyaṇa and Mr. S. P. Pandit suppose. It should be taken either ja appo. sition with tat, or as an adverb meaning now, ‘here,’ &c.)

Ludwig and Grassmann both translate it by ‘hound,’ but neither of them explains what it signifies. There is again some difference of opinion as to whether the word samvatsare should be taken with bodhayitāram or with vyakhyata. But whichsoever construction we adopt the meaning remains the same, since it is the same thing if the r̥bhus are said to be awakened at the end of the year and then commenced their course, or they awakened and then looked up at the beginning of the new year, or in other words, commenced their new-year’s course. Practically, therefore, all agree in holding that the awakening of the r̥bhus here referred to is their awakening at the end of the year, after they have enjoyed sound sleep and rest in the house of Agohya for twelve ( intercalary) days, and the only question that remains is, who is the hound or the dog that awakeps them?

We have seen that the r̥bhus were the genii of the seasons and that as companions of the sun they worked wonders during the whole course of the year. But as it was a lunar year, 12 days were intercalated at the end of each year to make it correspond with the solar year. These 12 days belonged neither to the old nor to the new year, and the r̥bhus were therefore naturally believed to suspend work during this neutral period and spend it in rest and enjoyment in the house of Agohya. When the whole legend has thus a chronological signification it is natural to hold that the hound, here alluded to, must be some constellalion in the heavens, and if so, after what has been said in the previous chapters about it, what could it be except Canis Major or the Dog star? The end of the year here referred to is evidently the end of the three seasons, represented by the three r̥bhus, and we must, therefore, take it to mean the end of the equinoctial year or the beginning of Vasanta, the first of the seasons.

Durgacharya in his commentary on Nirukta 11, 16 explains the phrase samvatsare (in Rig. i. 110. 4) in the same way. As I have already discussed the subject before,* (. See supra, Chapter II.) I do not here repeat the grounds on which I hold that the year, in primitive times commenced with the vernal equinox. Prof. Ludwig has made a happy suggestion that ābhogaya, which the R̥bhus are said to desire (Rig i. 110. 2) before they commence their career and reach the house of the sun, should be interpreted in its ordinary sense to mean the bend or the inclination of the ecliptic with the equalor. Our investigation based upon independent facts leads us to the same conclusion.

In short, the whole story of the r̥bhus, as we find it recorded in the R̥gveda, directly establishes the fact that at the time when this legend was formed the year commenced with the vernal equinox in Canis Major or the Dog-star. It is highly improbable, if not impossible, to give any other reasonable interpretation to the verse in question, whether we understand the r̥bhus to mean the three seasons of the year or the rays of the sun as Yāska and Sāyaṇa have done.

With the verbal equinox near the Dog-star, the winter solstice would fall on the full moon in Phālguna and Mr̥gaśiras would head the list of the Nakṣatras. Our interpretation of the verse in question is, therefore, fully warranted by the traditions about the ancient year-beginnings given in the Taittirīya Saṁhita and the Brāhmaṇas.

Vr̥ṣākapi

Contending identifications

Let us now examine the too much and too long mis understood or rather not-understood hymn of Vr̥ṣākapi in the tenth Mandala of the R̥gveda. As there is only one hymn in the R̥gveda which gives the story, it is not so easy, as in the case of the r̥bhus, to determine the nature of the deity, and hence various conjectures have been made by scholars as to its origin, character and meaning. The deities appear both in the masculine and in the feminine form, Vr̥ṣākapi and Vr̥shakapayī.

Amara* considers that Vr̥ṣākapi means either Vishṇu or Shiva, and Vr̥shakapayī either Lakshmi or Gaurī. (* Amara iii. 3. 130 and 156. हरो विष्णुर् वृषाकपिः and वृषाकपायी श्रीगौर्योः।) In the Br̥had-devatā Vr̥ṣākapi is said to represent the setting sun, and Vr̥shakapayī the gloaming. (+ Br̥had-devatā ii. 9, and 10:
वृषाकपायी सूर्योषाः। सूर्यस्यैव तु पत्नयः ।
पुरोदयात् ताम् उषसं सूर्यां मध्यन्दिने स्थिते ।
वृषाकपायीं सूर्यास्तकाल आहुः स्तुतिष्वृचि ।
And. again futher on in ii. 69 and 70.
वृषैव कपिलो भूत्वा यन्नाकम् अधिरोहति ।
वृषाकपिर् असौ तेन
विश्वस्माद् इन्द्र उत्तरः।
रश्मिभिः कम्पयन्नेति
वृषा वर्षिष्ठ एव सः।
सायाह्नकाले भूतानि
स्वापयन्न् अस्तमेति च।
वृषाकपिर् इतो वा स्याद्
इति मन्त्रेषु दृश्यते । )

Yāska (12. 27) would derive the word so as to mean the sun who shakes (the world) with his rays, and his commentator observes that the god showers mist or dew and shakes the animate world. Modern speculations about the derivation and the meaning of the name may be found in Phānu Dīkṣita’s commentary on Amara (iii. 3. 130).

Prof. Max Mūller, in one place, (Lectures on the Science of Language Vol. II., p. 539, ) observes that “it is difficult, on seeing the game of Vr̥ṣākapi, not to think of Erikapaeos, an Orphic name of Protogonos and synonymous with Phanes, Helios, Priapos, Dionysos,” but, says he, “the original conception of Vr̥ṣākapi (Vr̥shan, bull, irrigator; Kapi, ape, tremulous) is not much clearer than that of Erikapireos.” However, if the comparison be correct, we may, I think, take it as confirming the identification of Vr̥ṣākapi with the sun proposed by several scholars, native and European. In fact, there seems to be a general agreement that Vr̥ṣākapi represents the sun in one form or the other.

But this alone does not account for all the incidents recorded in the hymn. I would, therefore, further suggest that Vriṣākapi be understood as representing the sun at the autumnal equinox, when he may be rightly said to shake off the rains, in as much as the equinox falls at the end of the rainy season. I have previously shown that the conception of Vishṇu and Shiva can be traced to the Vedic Vishṇu and Rudra, and these latter may be taken as the types or the embodiments of the mild and terrible aspects of nature at the vernal and the autumnal equinox. If Vr̥ṣākapi in later mythology has therefore come to denote Viṣṇu and Shiva, according to Amara, the meanings are consistent with the supposition that in the Vedas Vr̥ṣākapi represents the sun at the equinoxes.

The hymn

In the hymn itself, Vr̥ṣākapi is said to have assumed the form of a yellow antelope whose head Indrāṇī is described to have cut off. This circumstance serves to guide us in at once fixing the position of Vr̥ṣākapi in the heavens. It is the same antelope’s head that has given rise to to many myths. When the position of Vr̥ṣākapi is thus fixed, it would not be difficult to understand the various incidents described in the hymn. But without further anticipating what I have to say in the explanation of the hymn, I now proceed to examine the hymn itself. We shall then see whether the assumption which we have made regarding the character and attributes of Vr̥ishākapi gives us a simple, natural, and above all, intelligible explanation of the story given in the hymn, which, as explained at present, is nothing but a bundle of disconnected, if not mutually inconsistent, statements. I shall first quote the original hymn.

वि हि सोतो॒रसृ॑क्षत॒ नेन्द्रं॑ दे॒वम॑मंसत ।
यत्राम॑दद्वृ॒षाक॑पिर॒र्यः पु॒ष्टेषु॒ मत्स॑खा॒ विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०१
परा॒ ही॑न्द्र॒ धाव॑सि वृ॒षाक॑पे॒रति॒ व्यथिः॑ ।
नो अह॒ प्र वि॑न्दस्य॒न्यत्र॒ सोम॑पीतये॒ विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०२
किम॒यं त्वां वृ॒षाक॑पिश्च॒कार॒ हरि॑तो मृ॒गः ।
यस्मा॑ इर॒स्यसीदु॒ न्व१॒॑र्यो वा॑ पुष्टि॒मद्वसु॒ विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०३
यमि॒मं त्वं वृ॒षाक॑पिं प्रि॒यमि॑न्द्राभि॒रक्ष॑सि ।
श्वा न्व॑स्य जम्भिष॒दपि॒ कर्णे॑ वराह॒युर्विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०४
प्रि॒या त॒ष्टानि॑ मे क॒पिर्व्य॑क्ता॒ व्य॑दूदुषत् ।
शिरो॒ न्व॑स्य राविषं॒ न सु॒गं दु॒ष्कृते॑ भुवं॒ विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०५
न मत्स्त्री सु॑भ॒सत्त॑रा॒ न सु॒याशु॑तरा भुवत् ।
न मत्प्रति॑च्यवीयसी॒ न सक्थ्युद्य॑मीयसी॒ विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०६
उ॒वे अ॑म्ब सुलाभिके॒ यथे॑वा॒ङ्ग भ॑वि॒ष्यति॑ ।
भ॒सन्मे॑ अम्ब॒ सक्थि॑ मे॒ शिरो॑ मे॒ वी॑व हृष्यति॒ विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०७
किं सु॑बाहो स्वङ्गुरे॒ पृथु॑ष्टो॒ पृथु॑जाघने ।
किं शू॑रपत्नि न॒स्त्वम॒भ्य॑मीषि वृ॒षाक॑पिं॒ विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०८
अ॒वीरा॑मिव॒ माम॒यं श॒रारु॑र॒भि म॑न्यते ।
उ॒ताहम॑स्मि वी॒रिणीन्द्र॑पत्नी म॒रुत्स॑खा॒ विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०९
सं॒हो॒त्रं स्म॑ पु॒रा नारी॒ सम॑नं॒ वाव॑ गच्छति ।
वे॒धा ऋ॒तस्य॑ वी॒रिणीन्द्र॑पत्नी महीयते॒ विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१०
इ॒न्द्रा॒णीमा॒सु नारि॑षु सु॒भगा॑म॒हम॑श्रवम् ।
न॒ह्य॑स्या अप॒रं च॒न ज॒रसा॒ मर॑ते॒ पति॒र्विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.११
नाहमि॑न्द्राणि रारण॒ सख्यु॑र्वृ॒षाक॑पेरृ॒ते ।
यस्ये॒दमप्यं॑ ह॒विः प्रि॒यं दे॒वेषु॒ गच्छ॑ति॒ विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१२
वृषा॑कपायि॒ रेव॑ति॒ सुपु॑त्र॒ आदु॒ सुस्नु॑षे ।
घस॑त्त॒ इन्द्र॑ उ॒क्षणः॑ प्रि॒यं का॑चित्क॒रं ह॒विर्विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१३
उ॒क्ष्णो हि मे॒ पञ्च॑दश सा॒कं पच॑न्ति विंश॒तिम् ।
उ॒ताहम॑द्मि॒ पीव॒ इदु॒भा कु॒क्षी पृ॑णन्ति मे॒ विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१४
वृ॒ष॒भो न ति॒ग्मशृ॑ङ्गो॒ऽन्तर्यू॒थेषु॒ रोरु॑वत् ।
म॒न्थस्त॑ इन्द्र॒ शं हृ॒दे यं ते॑ सु॒नोति॑ भाव॒युर्विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१५
न सेशे॒ यस्य॒ रम्ब॑तेऽन्त॒रा स॒क्थ्या॒३॒॑ कपृ॑त् ।
सेदी॑शे॒ यस्य॑ रोम॒शं नि॑षे॒दुषो॑ वि॒जृम्भ॑ते॒ विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१६
न सेशे॒ यस्य॑ रोम॒शं नि॑षे॒दुषो॑ वि॒जृम्भ॑ते ।
सेदी॑शे॒ यस्य॒ रम्ब॑तेऽन्त॒रा स॒क्थ्या॒३॒॑ कपृ॒द्विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१७
अ॒यमि॑न्द्र वृ॒षाक॑पिः॒ पर॑स्वन्तं ह॒तं वि॑दत् ।
अ॒सिं सू॒नां नवं॑ च॒रुमादेध॒स्यान॒ आचि॑तं॒ विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१८
अ॒यमे॑मि वि॒चाक॑शद्विचि॒न्वन्दास॒मार्य॑म् ।
पिबा॑मि पाक॒सुत्व॑नो॒ऽभि धीर॑मचाकशं॒ विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१९
धन्व॑ च॒ यत्कृ॒न्तत्रं॑ च॒ कति॑ स्वि॒त्ता वि योज॑ना ।
नेदी॑यसो वृषाक॒पेऽस्त॒मेहि॑ गृ॒हाँ उप॒ विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.२०
पुन॒रेहि॑ वृषाकपे सुवि॒ता क॑ल्पयावहै ।
य ए॒ष स्व॑प्न॒नंश॒नोऽस्त॒मेषि॑ प॒था पुन॒र्विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.२१
यदुद॑ञ्चो वृषाकपे गृ॒हमि॒न्द्राज॑गन्तन ।
क्व१॒॑ स्य पु॑ल्व॒घो मृ॒गः कम॑गञ्जन॒योप॑नो॒ विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.२२
पर्शु॑र्ह॒ नाम॑ मान॒वी सा॒कं स॑सूव विंश॒तिम् ।
भ॒द्रं भ॑ल॒ त्यस्या॑ अभू॒द्यस्या॑ उ॒दर॒माम॑य॒द्विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.२३

There are twenty-three verses in the hymn; and of these 3, 4, 5 and 20, 21 and 22 have a direct bearing on the question we are discussing. But to understand these verses properly, it is necessary to discuss most of the other verses in the hymn, and I shall therefore examine the hymn verse by verse. I have already remarked that the hymn is one of those which have not yet been properly understood. Some of the verses have been explained by Yāska, but he has nowhere tried to give us the bearing of the whole story described in the hymn, Sāyaṇa’s commentary is very often simply verbal, and in many places he too is not certain about the meaning, while the Anukramaṇī has been several times disregarded by Sāyaṇa himself.

On the other hand, Ludwig, Grassmann, and several other European scholars have tried in their own way to explain the legend or the story embodied in the hymn, and the latest attempt of the kind is that of Piscel and Geldner in their Vedic studies, Vol. VII., Part 1. (I am indebted for this information to Dr. R. G, Bhāṇḍārkar, who kindly undertook to explain to me the views of German scholars on this point.) These scholars hold that the hymn narrates a legend current in old days. In other words, they take it, and I think rightly, to be a historic hymn. But the question, what does the legend signify, or how did it originate, still remains unsolved. Piscel and Geldoer understand the hymn to mean that Vr̥ṣākapi went down to the south and again returned to the house of Indra. But even then the bearing of the legend is but imperfectly explained.

The occurrence of such words as dāsa, arya and parshu in the hymn have led some to suppose that the hymn records the story of a struggle between the Aryan and the non-Aryan races. But the hypothesis hardly explains the various incidents in the story, and the legend may therefore be said to be but still imperfectly understood. Under such circumstances any suggestion which explains the hymn better is at least entitled to a hearing. It is admitted that the hymn is a dialogue between Indra, Indrāṇī, and Vriṣākapi, a son of Indra as they call him.¹ But there is a great divergence of opinion in assigning different verses to their deities. I shall examine these points while discussing the verses.

Piscel and Geldner introduce Vr̥ṣākapayī in the dialogue and distribute the verses somewhat differently thus, indra, 1, 3, 8, 12, 14, 19, 20; Indrāṇī 2, 4, 8, 8, 9, 16, 21 ; Vr̥ṣākapi 7, 10 13 ; and Vr̥ṣākapayī, 11, 15, 17, 18, Verses 23 und 39 are supposed to be addressed by a stranger, the narrator.

VERSE 1.

वि हि सोतो॒र् असृ॑क्षत॒
नेन्द्रं॑ दे॒वम् अ॑मंसत ।
यत्राम॑दद् वृ॒षाक॑पिर्
अ॒र्यः पु॒ष्टेषु॒ मत्स॑खा॒
विश्व॑स्मा॒द् इन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०१

The verse has been differently interpreted by different writers.

Yāska (13. 4.) interprets it as referring to the rays of the sun, which (the rays) deem themselves perfectly independent of the luminary by which they were sent out.

Sāyaṇa ascribes it to Indra who says “that sacrificers, allowed by me to sacrifice to Vr̥ṣākapi, have disregarded me, but are praising the lord Vr̥ṣākapi who is delighted, as my friend, in the sacrifices, where plenty of Soma is used; (but notwithstanding] this Indra is superior to all.”

Mādhava Bhaṭṭa, whom Sāyaṇa mentions with respect, however, thinks otherwise. He considers that the verse is addressed by Indrāṇī to Indra, when she perceived that the sacrificers have ceased to sacrifice on account of the oblations being spoiled by an animal representing Vriṣākapi. He would, therefore, thus interpret the verse - Says Indrāṇī, “In places of plenty where lord Vr̥ṣākapi revels, sacrificers have give up sacrificing and disregarded Indra. My friend Indra is superior to all.”

When the very first verse is thus interpreted in three different ways, one can easily attribute the difference to an imperfect perception of the bearing of the whole hymn. To me, Mādhava Bhaṭṭa alone appears to have taken into consideration the verses that follow. Thus the fifth verse of the hymn states that the things of Indrāṇī were spoilt by Vr̥ṣākapi in the form of an animal, and consequently he was beheaded. I should, however, like to refer to verse 21, wherein Vr̥ṣākapi is told that when he appears again, sacrifices would be performed. This evidently implies that they were stopped before and were to be commenced again on the re-appearance of Vr̥ṣākapi. The first verse therefore must be interpreted to mean that “the sacrifices are stopped.” The root sr̥j with vi may mean either to abandon or to allow, but the former is its natural meaning, and when verse 21 in the same hymn can be easily explained by taking the former meaning of sr̥j with vi, it would be straining the words if we put a different interpretation on them. I am, therefore, disposed to interpret the verse after the manner of Mādhava Bhaṭṭa, except the last sentence.

But why should sacrifices be stopped ? What has Vr̥ṣākapi to do with them? These are very important questions, and I am sure that had they been properly answered, there would have been no difficulty in interpreting the hymn. In verse 3 we are told that Vr̥ṣākapi spoken of in this hymn, has the form of a yellow antelope. In verse 5 Indrāṇī is prepared to cut off his head, because he offended her, and in the preceding verse ( 4th ) a dog is said to be let loose upon him. These facts -an antelope with the head cut off, and a dog closely following him are quite sufficient for the purposes of identification. They shew that the whole story is based upon the “antelope’s head” we have previously discussed ; and had Yāska and Sāyaṇa known that there is a constellation called dog in the heavens by the side of Mr̥gaśiras, I feel certain that they would not have hesitated to recognize in Vr̥ṣākapi, the sun as represented by the constellation of Orion. But all traces of the dog, as a constellation, having been lost in the Sanskrit literature, neither Yāska nor sāyaṇa could find any clue to the true meaning of the hymn.(5)

This is not, however, the only place where Yāska has been obliged to invent extraordinary interpretations. Not knowing that the dog represented a star, he has proposed (Nirukta 6. 20), that Vr̥ka should be understood to mean “the moon,” while usually it means a wolf or a wild dog,(5) and it appears to me that a similar mistake has been also committed here. Comparative Mythology and Greek Astronomy have, however, thrown further light on the subject, and we must now try to interpret the hymn accordingly. Vr̥ṣākapi must, therefore, be taken to represent the sun in Orion.

But even supposing that Vr̥ṣākapi thus represents the sun in Orion, why should the sacrifices be stopped in his account? The identification of Vriṣākapi with Orion at once furnishes us with a solution of this question. We have already seen that the dog is said to commence the new year in Rig i. 161. 13; and since Canis and Orion are close to each other, Orion may also be said to have commenced the year. The Devayāna, therefore, extended in those days from the heliacal to the acronycal rising of Orion, that is, when Orion rose with the sun, it was the vernal equinox, the beginning of the Devayāna, and six months after, when it rose at the beginning of night, it was the autumnal equinox, the end of the Devayāna. Now all Deva ceremonies and sacrifices could be begun and performed only during the Devayāna,* (* Jaimini Mim Dar. vi. 8. 23, and other authorities cited in Chap. II.) or, as we find it in later traditions, only in the Uttarāyaṇa. The acronycal rising of Orion was thus a signal to stop such ceremonies, and oblations could properly be said to have been spoilt by the appearance of this constellation at the beginning of night. (If Vr̥tra is correctly identified with the constellation of Mr̥gaśiras, we may on the same theory also explain why he is called Makhasyu in Rig. x. 73, 7. The appearance of Mr̥ga, at the beginning of night indicated the commencement of the Dakṣiṇāyana wben sacrifices were stopped. Vr̥tra alias Mr̥ga might thus come to be regarded as a destroyer of the sacrifices.)

But above all the burden of the song “Indra is uttara of all,” becomes specially appropriate in this case. The word uttara does not here mean superior, but “upper” implying that Indra is in the upper or the northern portion of the universe, though the sun or Vr̥ṣākapi may go down.(5) I would therefore translate the first verse thus:-" Where my friend Vr̥ṣākapi rejoiced in the wealth of the Aryans, they gave up sacrificing and did not respect Indra. Indra is (however) in the upper (i. e., northern) part of the universe."*

(If Vr̥ṣākapayī is to be at all introduced in the dialogue, we may assign this verse to her. The phrases, " my friend" and “did not respect lndra,” would be more appropriate in her mouth than in that of Indra or Indrāṇī.)

VERSE 2.

परा॒ ही॑न्द्र॒ धाव॑सि
वृ॒षाक॑पे॒र् अति॒ व्यथिः॑ ।
नो अह॒ प्र वि॑न्दस्य्
अ॒न्यत्र॒ सोम॑पीतये॒
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०२

Indra is here reproached for following up Vriṣākapi, though he has offended Indrāṇī. Says she to Indra : “O Indra! (how is it that) you run down fast after Vr̥ṣākapi and do not go anywhere else to drink soma. Indra is, &c.”

The word parā in this verse seems to denote the region where Vr̥ṣākapi has gone. Parāvat is often said to be the place in the distant or lower portion of the sphere, and is thus contrasted with arvāvat (Rig. viii. 13. 10). In Rig. viii. 33. 10 Indra is said to be Vr̥ṣā in the parāvat and also in the arvāvat regions. Indra is again very often spoken of as going to distant regions to see whether Vr̥tra is duly killed. The same fact appears to be here expressed in a different form.

VERSE 3.

किम् अ॒यं त्वां वृ॒षाक॑पिश्
च॒कार॒ हरि॑तो(=सुवर्णो) मृ॒गः ।
यस्मा॑ इर॒स्य् असीदु॒ न्व्
अ१॒॑र्यो वा॑ पुष्टि॒मद् वसु॒
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०३

Sāyaṇa following the Anukramaṇi, understands the verse as addressed by Indrāṇī to Indra. Ludwig and Grassmann, on the other hand, take it to be addressed by Indra to Indrāṇī; and this construction seems better than that of Sāyaṇa. It may, however, be here, once for all, remarked that though scholars thus differ in assigning verses to different deities, yet it does not, on the whole, materially alter the legend incorporated in the hymn.

Says Indra : " What has this Vr̥ṣākapi, in the form of a yellow antelope, done to thee that you are so much angry with him? Was it the rich possession (wealth) of the Aryans? Indra, &c."

The form, in which Vr̥ṣākapi is here said to have appeared, should be specially noted. Harita means yellow, and yellow animals (Haritaḥ) are said to be yoked to the carriage of Aditya in Nighaṇṭu ( 1, 15 ). There the word is, however, understood lo be the plural of Harit, by the commentators in conformity to Rig, i. 115. 3 and . 48. 9, where the sun is said to have seven horses yoked to his carriage. But I think that the same idea may give rise to the conception that the sun is represented by a single yellow animal, and we may take the passage in the Nighaṇṭu as referring also to the verse under consideration. I have previously alluded to the fact that the dog at the Chinvat bridge in the Parsi traditions is described as zaritem, that is, of the same colour as the antelope in the third verse. But the question of colour cannot be taken as finally settled until we first definitely decide what animal is represented by Mr̥ga.* (• See Dr. Rajendralal’s Indo-Aryans, Vol, II., p. 303.)

VERSES 4 & 5.

यम् इ॒मं त्वं वृ॒षाक॑पिं
प्रि॒यम् इ॑न्द्राभि॒रक्ष॑सि ।
श्वा न्व् अ॑स्य जम्भिष॒द्
अपि॒ कर्णे॑ वराह॒युर्
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०४

प्रि॒या त॒ष्टानि॑ मे क॒पिर्
व्य॑क्ता॒ व्य॑दूदुषत् ।
शिरो॒ न्व् अ॑स्य राविषं॒
न सु॒गं दु॒ष्कृते॑ भुवं॒
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०५

Sāyaṇa is literally correct, but again misses the spirit, or rather has missed it throughout the hymn. Indra was reproached in the second verse for his partiality or over-kindness to Vr̥ṣākapi, but Indrānī was not satisfied with it, and if Indra failed to punish the Kapi, she took the matter in her own hand. Says she : “O Indra ! as you (thus) protect this (your) favourite Vr̥ṣākapi, let the dog, eager (to chase ) a hog (varāha ), bite him at his ear. The Kapi spoilt my favourite things.² I shall, therefore, cut off his head, in order that an evil-doer may not enjoy happiness. Indra is in the upper (portion) of the universe,”

Here Indrāṇī is herself prepared to punish Vr̥ṣākapi by setting the dog at his ear, and cutting off his head. I have in a previous chapter shown how the figure of Mr̥ga’s head is to be obtained in the sky. Taking the three stars in the belt of Orion as the top of the head, the dog is close by the right ear of Mr̥ga and may properly be said to bite it. The word varāha also points out the place where we may expect to find the dog. In Rig. i. 61.7, varāha is said to be killed by Vishnu beyond a mountain, which, in all probability, is the same story as that of Indra killing Vr̥tra. (* ln Rig. x. 99, 6, Indra is said to have killed Trishīrśan, had with his aid Trita killed varāha. ) A dog chasing varāha is therefore no other than Canis Major following the constellation of Orion, or the " antelope’s head " representing Vr̥tra. Sāyaṇa and Yāska and even European scholars are silent as to who this dog is. The verses, in fact, may be said to have remained altogether unexplained hitherto, though the words themselves are simple enough and have caused no difficulty.

VERSE 6.

न मत् स्त्री सु॑भ॒सत्त॑रा॒
न सु॒याशु॑तरा भुवत् ।
न मत् प्रति॑च्यवीयसी॒
न सक्थ्युद्य॑मीयसी॒
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०६

This verse presents no difficulty. Thus satisfied, Indraṇī speaks of herself as the best of women, best in every way.

VERSES 7 & 8.

उ॒वे अ॑म्ब सुलाभिके॒
यथे॑वा॒ङ्ग भ॑वि॒ष्यति॑ ।
भ॒सन् मे॑ अम्ब॒ सक्थि॑ मे॒
शिरो॑ मे॒ वी॑व हृष्यति॒
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०७

किं सु॑बाहो स्वङ्गुरे॒
पृथु॑ष्टो॒ पृथु॑जाघने ।
किं शू॑रपत्नि न॒स् त्वम्
अ॒भ्य॑मीषि वृ॒षाक॑पिं॒
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०८

Indra now tries to conciliate her. Sāyaṇa, following the Anukramaṇi, supposes that the seventh verse is addressed by Vr̥ṣākapi and the eighth by Indra. The only reason I can find for such an interpretation is the occurrence of the word amba, which means “mother,” and this cannot be supposed to be used by Indra. But though we avoid one difficulty in this way, we are launched into another, for the verse speaks of Indrāṇī being pleasing “to me; " and if Vr̥ṣākapi is the speaker “me,” cannot refer to him, as Indrāṇī is his mother and, consequently, “me” has to be interpreted to mean “my father,” and this Sāyaṇa has done.

I prefer taking amba as an affectionale and respectful mode of address, as in modern Sanskrit, and the verse presents no difficulty. We can then take both the 7th and the 8th verse together and give them a natural interpretation. I translate thus “O auspicious lady! what you say is true …… you are pleasing to me.. But oh hero-wife, with beautiful arms, pretty figure, profuse hair, and broad hips, why should you be so angry with our Vr̥ṣākapi? Indra is in the upper (part) of the universe.”

VERSE 9.

अ॒वीरा॑म् इव॒ माम् अ॒यं
श॒रारु॑र् अ॒भि म॑न्यते ।
उ॒ताहम् अ॑स्मि वी॒रिणी-
-न्द्र॑पत्नी म॒रुत्स॑खा॒
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.०९

Indrāṇī replies, “This mischievous (Vr̥ṣākapi) considers me to be avirā (i. e., without a brave husband or son), while I am the wife of Indra, the mother of the brave, and the friend of Maruts. Indra, &c.”

Verses 10 & 11.

सं॒हो॒त्रं स्म॑ पु॒रा नारी॒
सम॑नं॒ वाव॑ गच्छति ।
वे॒धा ऋ॒तस्य॑ वी॒रिणी-

• न्द्र॑पत्नी महीयते॒
  विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१०

इ॒न्द्रा॒णीम् आ॒सु नारि॑षु
सु॒भगा॑म् अ॒हम् अ॑श्रवम् ।
न॒ ह्य् अ॑स्या अप॒रं च॒न
ज॒रसा॒ मर॑ते॒ पति॒र्
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.११

Pischel and Geldner suppose that the first is addressed by Vr̥ṣākapi to Indrāṇī, and the second by Vr̥ṣakapayī. Sāyaṇa understands them to be addressed by Indra. Whichsoever construction we adopt, the meaning remains the same. Indrāṇī is here told that she is highly respected everywhere; she is the blessed of all women, and that her husband never suffers from old age. This is obviously intended to pacify her.

VERSE 12.

नाहम् इ॑न्द्राणि रारण॒
सख्यु॑र् वृ॒षाक॑पेर् ऋ॒ते ।
यस्ये॒दम् अप्यं॑ ह॒विः
प्रि॒यं दे॒वेषु॒ गच्छ॑ति॒
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१२

Indra says “O Indrāṇī! I am not delighted without my friend Vriṣākapi, of whom these favourite watery oblations reach the gods. Indra is in the upper (part) of the universe.”

VERSE 13.

वृषा॑कपायि॒ रेव॑ति॒
सुपु॑त्र॒ आदु॒ सुस्नु॑षे ।
घस॑त् त॒ इन्द्र॑ उ॒क्षणः॑
प्रि॒यं का॑चित् क॒रं ह॒विर्
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१३

This seems to be also addressed by Indra to Indrāṇī, who is here called Vr̥ṣākapāyī. This latter name has caused a difference of opinion, some considering Vr̥ṣakapāyī to be the mother, some the wife of Vr̥ṣākapi. (See Max Muller’s Lectures on the Science of Language, Vol. II., 538) I do not see how the wife of Vriṣākapi as such, could be introduced in the song, unless Vr̥ṣākapi is understood to be the name of Indra himself. Commentators, who take Vr̥ṣākapāyī to mean the wife of Vr̥ṣākapi, accordingly adopt the latter view. Pischel and Geldner think that the verse is addressed by Vriṣākapi to his wife Vr̥ṣākapāyī.

The verse means, “O rich Vr̥ṣākapāyī having a good son and a daughter-in-law, let Indra swallow the bulls, your favourite and delightful oblation, Indra &c.” There has been much speculation as to who could be the son and the daughter-in-law of Vr̥ṣākapāyī. But if Vr̥ṣākapāyī be understood to mean the wife of Indra, it causes no such difficulty. The adjectives “having a good son.” &c, are simply complimentary, corresponding to the statement of Indrāṇī, that she was the “mother of the brave” in verse 9. Indra accepting her statements, asks her to allow him to swallow the watery oblations said to come from Vr̥ṣākapi in the last verse. The words priyam and havis are the same in both the verses; and I think that both of them refer to the same oblations.

VERSE 14.

उ॒क्ष्णो हि मे॒ पञ्च॑दश
सा॒कं पच॑न्ति विंश॒तिम् ।
उ॒ताहम् अ॑द्मि॒ पीव॒ इद्
उ॒भा कु॒क्षी पृ॑णन्ति मे॒
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१४

Indra, satisfied with the prospect of getting the oblations, describes his appetite: “Twenty and ffteen oxen are being cooked for me; I shall eat them and be fat. Both the sides of my belly will be filled up. Indra, &c.”

The practice of sacrificing bulls to Indra seems to have been out of date even at the time of the R̥gveda (cf. i, 164. 43, where it is said to be an old custom). But the old custom could not be entirely forgotten, and if real bulls were not offered to Indra, poets supposed that clouds or stars might answer the same purpose. The number 35 mentioned in the verse may thus refer to the Nakṣatras (28), and planets (7). But this explanation is doubtful and I cannot suggest a better one.

VERES 15, 16 & 17.

वृ॒ष॒भो न ति॒ग्म-शृ॑ङ्गो॒
ऽन्तर् यू॒थेषु॒ रोरु॑वत् ।
म॒न्थस् त॑ इन्द्र॒ शं हृ॒दे
यं ते॑ सु॒नोति॑ भाव॒युर्
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१५

न सेशे॒ यस्य॒ रम्ब॑ते
ऽन्त॒रा स॒क्थ्या॒३॒॑ कपृ॑त् ।
सेदी॑शे॒ यस्य॑ रोम॒शं
नि॑षे॒दुषो॑ वि॒जृम्भ॑ते॒
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१६

न सेशे॒ यस्य॑ रोम॒शं
नि॑षे॒दुषो॑ वि॒जृम्भ॑ते ।
सेदी॑शे॒ यस्य॒ रम्ब॑ते
ऽन्त॒रा स॒क्थ्या॒३॒॑ कपृ॒द्
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१७

The fifteenth and the sixteenth seem to be addressed to Indra by Indrāṇī, and the seventeenth to Indrāṇī by Indra. In the fifteenth Indrāni, according to Sāyāṇa, asked Indra to sport with her just as a bull, with pointed horns, roars amongst a number of cows. The next two verses do not appear to be relevant to our purpose. We may therefore pass these over, and resume the thread of the story. Pischel and Geldner suppose that the 17th and 18th verses are addressed by Vr̥ṣakapāyī.

VERSES 18 & 19.

अ॒यम् इ॑न्द्र वृ॒षाक॑पिः॒
पर॑स्वन्तं ह॒तं वि॑दत् ।
अ॒सिं सू॒नां नवं॑ च॒रुम्
आद् एध॒स्यान॒ आचि॑तं॒
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१८

अ॒यम् ए॑मि वि॒चाक॑शद्
विचि॒न्वन् दास॒म् आर्य॑म् ।
पिबा॑मि पाक॒सुत्व॑नो॒
ऽभि धीर॑म् अचाकशं॒
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.१९

Indrāṇī is now conciliated, and says that she has not killed Vr̥ṣākapi, but some one else. The verse thus means, “O Indra ! Let Vr̥ṣākapi get the slain animal-an animal which was quite different from Vr̥ṣākapi’s. Let him at once have a knife, a fire-place, a new vessel, and a cart-load of firewood (to cook the killed animal). ladra, &c.” Thus by the intercession of Indra, Indrāṇī was moved, and at last undid or rather explained away her previous act of decapitation.

Pischel and Geldaer translate the verse very nearly as I have done. They, however, consider it to be addressed by Vr̥shākapāyī and translate parasvantam by “wild.” This does not explain what dead animal is here referred to. It is, I think, more natural to suppose that the dead animal here spoken of is the same as that described in Verse 6, and one whose head Indrāṇī is there said to be ready to cut off.

Indrāṇī now says that this dead animal should be given to Vr̥ṣhākapi, especially as Indra has already got his oblations of bulls. I have already shown that there were several legends about the " antelope’s head.” It seems that Indrāṇī, referring to some of them, assures Indra that it was not Vriṣākapi in the form of the antelope which she killed, but some one else (literally parasvantam - representing another than Vr̥ṣākapi, as Sāyaṇa takes it.)

Thereon Indra, having thus saved Vr̥ṣākapi by his intercession, observes, “Thus do I go seeing and discriminating between a dasa and an arya ; I take my drink from those that prepare Soma juice and cook the oblations, and thus behold or protect the intelligent sacrificers.” In another word, Indra is glad that he has saved an Arya, and triumphantly declares that he is always careful to distinguish between an Arya and a Dāsa, the latter of whom he would punish and kill, e.g., Vr̥tra, who is said to be a Dāsa, Vr̥ṣākapi being thus saved Indra, in the following verses, bids him a farewell, wishing for a safe journey and speedy return. These verses are very important for our present purpose, and I shall therefore examine them singly.

VERSE 20

धन्व॑ च॒ यत् कृ॒न्तत्रं॑ च॒
कति॑ स्वि॒त् ता वि योज॑ना ।
नेदी॑यसो वृषाक॒पे
ऽस्त॒म् एहि॑ गृ॒हाँ उप॒
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.२०

In this verse Indra asks Vr̥ṣākapi to go to his house (astam) and then return afterwards to the house (gr̥has) of Indra. But the question is where is Vpipbākapi’s house and where is that of Indra ? The words in the original are dhanva, kr̥ntatra and nedīyas. Vriṣākapi is asked to go to dhanva, which is also kr̥ntatra. Sāyaṇa taka dhanva to mean a desert and kr̥ntatra in the sense that “the trees therein are cut off.” But this meaning does not quite suit the context. What is meant by saying that Vr̥ṣākapi, who is admittedly the sun in a different form, should go to a forest? Where is that forest, and what does it imply?

Dhanva is a word that occurs several times in the R̥gveda. In Rig. i. 38. 8 it is said to consist of three yojanas and is contrasted with the earth. Sāyaṇa there understands it to mean “sky or heavens,” and I see no reason why we should not interpret the word in the same way in this verse. Dhanva therefore means “sky” or “heavens.” But is it the vault above with three stages? No, the poet qualifies the idea by kr̥ntatra, meaning “cut off.” It is thus evidently the portion of the heavens which is cut off. In other words, the idea here denoted is the same as that expressed by the phrase avarodhanam divah where heavens are closed, " where the view is obstructed,” in Rig. ix. 113. 8. Dhanva, which is kr̥tantra, * thus denotes the innermost part of the celestial sphere, the southern hemisphere or the Pitr̥yāna. (* The only other place where kr̥ntatra is used in the R̥gveda is v. 27. 13, which Yāska and Sāyaṇa both interpret to mean that “waters come up from kr̥ntatra" 1. 8., a cloud." But it may be a well asked it Kr̥ntatrāt cannot here mean " from below." )

The poet knows that the vault of the heavens above him has three halts or stages which Vishṇu is said to have used as his three steps (Rig. i. 22. 17). But of the nether world the poet has no definite knowledge, and he therefore cannot specify the yojanas or the stages it contains. Thus he simply says that there are some yojanas therein. The first part of the verse may now be translated thus: “O Vr̥ṣākapi! go to the house (in) the celestial sphere which is cut off and which contains some yojanas or stages.” In short, Indra means that Vpiṣakapi should now descend into the southern hemispere.

The latter part of the verse literally means “and come to our house from nedīyas.” Now nedīyas is again a word which neither Yāska dor Sāyaṇa seem to have properly understood. Pāṇini (v. 3.63) tells us that nedīyas is the comparative of antika. Now nedīyas cannot possibly be derived from antika by any change in the form of the latter word. Pānini therefore considers neda to be a substitute for antika, when the comparative form is to be derived. This is equivalent to saying that ‘bet’ is to be substituted for ‘good’ in deriving the comparative form of ‘good’ in English. I need not say how far such an expla nation would be regarded satisfactory. My own view is that nedīyas had lost its positive form in the times of Pāṇini, or perhaps its positive form was never in use like that of superior in English. But Pāṇini, who, as a grammarian, felt bound to account for all the forms, connected nedīyas with antika, probably because the ordinary meaning of nedīyas in his time was the same as that of the comparative form of antika. But we cannot infer from this that nedīyas might not have meant anything else in the days of Pāṇini. Paṇini might liave taken into account only the most ordinary sense of the word, and finding that a positive form was wanting connected it with the word which expressed the ordinary meaning in the positive form. The fact that Pāṇini considers nedīyas as the comparative of antika does not therefore preclude us from assuming, if we have other grounds to do so, that nedīyas originally meant something else in addition to its present sense ; for Pāṇini speaks of the form and not of the meaning of nedīyas. Having thus shown that the authority of Par̥ni is not against me, I shall now give my meaning of nedīyas. I think it means lower, being akin to neath, beneath, nether and corresponding words in other languages. (• Bopp derives O. H. G. nidar from sk. ni down, and disapproves Grimm’s suggestion that it should be traced to a Gothic verb niliun, natit, nethum, and divided as nid-ar, ar being a omparative termination, (Bopp. Com. Gr. Eng. Te, 1860, Vol. I., 382). K. Brugermann compares Sk. nedīyas with Av. nazd-yar meaning nearer, and derives the words from nazd (ni down and zd to sit). Cf. Sk. nīda Lat. nīdu, O. Ir. net, O H.G. nest= a nesting place (Comp. Gr. i., § 591, ii, $84, 135). Both bopp and Brugmann do not propose any new meaning of nedīyas. But it is evident that whichsoever derivation we adopt the word is connected with ni down, and if we find passages in the Brahmanas where it is contrasted with upariṣṭhāt, we can, I think, safely understand nedīyas to mean ’lower’ as suggested by its etymology ; ’nearer’ is secondary meaning.)

The suggestion, I know, will be received by some with surprise and suspicion, and I must give my grounds for proposing a new meaning. There is no passage in the R̥gveda where the use of nedīyas might be cousidered as definitely deciding its meaning. In Rig. v. 52. 6, viii. 26. 10 and x. 101. 3, nediṣtha or nedīyas might be supposed to mean lowest or lower. But the passages are not conclusive on this point, as the word there used might also be understood to mean ’nearest,’ nearer,’ according to Paṇini. In the Brāhmaṇas we, however, meet with more decisive passages. Thus in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa vi. 27 nedīyas is contrasted with upariṣṭhāt.* (* उपरिष्ठान् नेदीयसि भागे Ait. Br. vi. 27.) Böhtlingk and Roth give a passage from the Kaṭhaka recension of Yajurveda (28. 4), which says, the ascends (ārohat) to the heavens from the nethiṣṭha world."+ (नेदिष्ठादेव स्वर्गलोकमारोहति। Kathak. 28. 4) Here the word ‘ascend’ clearly shows that the netishtha world 10981 be undeistood to mean the lowest world,’ world at the bottom. In the Tandya Brāhmaṇa iii. 4, 2, (3, 2) there occurs a passage where the directions for lowering the tone are given as follows:-“Just as after creeping up to the top of a high tree (a man) gradually comes lower and lower so, &c.”. (* यथा महावृक्षस्याग्रं सृप्त्वा नेदीयः सङ्क्रमात् सङ्क्रामत्य्, एवम् एतन् नेदीयः सङ्क्रमया नेदीयः सङ्क्रामात् सङ्क्रामति। Tan. Br. iii. 4.2. ) The word for lowering in the text in nedīyas sankramāt, and there is no possibility of mistaking its meaning. In the Tāndya Brāhmaṇa ii. 1. 3 the raising of the tone is described as ascending from top to top (agrāt agram); and nedīyas sankrama must, therefore, mean a gradual lowering of the voice. In fact, nedīyas sankrama represents the same idea as low-er-ing, that is, not taking a sudden leap down but descending from the highest point to the next lower, and so on.

In all these places Sāyaṇa explains nedīyas as meaning ’nearer’ according to Pāṇini; but in every case he has to strain the words to suit the context. It was not, however, Sāyaṇa’s fault ; for after nedīyas was once assigned to antika, all traces of its old meaning were naturally lost, and none dared to question Paṇini’s authority. But we now know that in other languages neath means low, and in several passages in the Brāhmaṇas, we find nedīyas contrasted with ‘upper’ or ’top.’ This, in my opinion, is sufficient to prove that nedīyas meant lower in the Vedic times. I have already shown that the authority of Pāṇini is not against understanding the word in this way. All that he has laid down is that nedīyas having no positive form should be derived from antika without saying whether nedīyas was or was not used in any other sense. I am therefore inclined to think that nedīyas might have had more than one meaning even in Pāṇini’s time, but he took the most ordinary meaning and derived the comparative form from antika. This is course of time served in its turn to restrict the denotation of the word only to one meaning, viz., ’nearer.’

I would therefore translate the verse thus, “O Vr̥ṣākapi! go to the house the celestial sphere which is cut off and which contains some (unknown) yojanas or stages. From your nether house come to our house. Indra is in the upper (portion) of the universe.” Nediyas is thus contrasted with uttara in the burden of the song. Both are comparative forms. Indra is in the uttara (upper) regions, while Vr̥ṣākapi is going to the nedīyas (lower) world ; and Indra expects or rather requests Vr̥ṣākapi to come back again to his(Indra’s) house. That is the gist of the whole verse.

The idea that the sun falls down from the autumnal equinox is an old one. To Ait. Br. iii. 18 and in Taitt. Br. i. 3. 12. 1 the ceremonies on on the Viṣūvān or the equinoctial day in a satra are described, and there we are told that “gods were afraid of the sun falling down from the sky and so supported him,” and being thus supported he “became uttara to all”. The ait. Br. iii. 18 has thus the same word uttara that we have in this verse, and it is natural to suppose that both relate to the same subject. I have also quoted a passage from the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa where nedīyas is contrasted with upariṣhṭat. From these I infer that the verse, we are now considering, describes the descent of the sun into the southern or the lower hemisphere, and that Indra asks him to come back again to the house of Gods, i.e., the northern hemisphere.

I have already given in full my reasons for understanding nedīyas in a different sense. But I may remark that, even accepting the common meaning of the word, the verse may still be interpreted in the way I have suggested.

VERSE 21.

पुन॒रेहि॑ वृषाकपे
सुवि॒ता क॑ल्पयावहै ।
य ए॒ष स्व॑प्न॒नंश॒नो
ऽस्त॒म् एषि॑ प॒था पुन॒र्
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.२१

Vr̥ṣikapi has gone down to the netherworld. This verse now describes what Indra will do when he returns. Says Indra, “O Vr̥ṣākapi ! You, the destroyer of sleep, who are going to the house, come back again, again by (your) way. We would perform the sacrifices. Indra, &c.” The verse thus distinctly refers to the recommencement of the sacrifices in the Devayāna or the Uttarāyaṇa as understood in old days. The word suvita is from the same root as vaitānika and kalpyāvahai is from kl̥p, the root which gives us the word kalpa in kalpasūtras. Savita kalpyāvahai thus means “we would perform the vaitānika ceremonies," which, as described in the first verse, were stopped when the sun went down to the neither world I may also here point out that the house in the nether world or, as Sāyaṇa interprets it, the house of the enemy is called asta - literally ’thrown’, while Indra’s house is called gr̥ha. The sun goes down to the asta and returns up to the gr̥ha of Indra. This verse, in so far as it speaks of the recommencement of sacrificial ceremonies, confirms the interpretation I have proposed for the preceding verse.

VERSE 22.

यद् उद॑ञ्चो वृषाकपे
गृ॒हम् इ॒न्द्राज॑गन्तन ।
क्व१॒॑ स्य पु॑ल्व॒घो मृ॒गः
कम् अ॑गञ् जन॒योप॑नो॒
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.२२

This is the most important verse in the whole hymn. It describes the circumstances under which Vr̥ṣākapi will return to Indra’s house. Literally rendered it means, “O mighty Vriṣākapi! ³ When you rising upwards (or rather northwards) would come to (our) house, where would that great sinner Mr̥ga be? Where he, who misleads people, would go? Indra, &c.”

Now Yāska, in whose days all traces of Canis being once a star in the heavens were lost, could not understand what to make of the statement “where would that great singer Mr̥ga be?” It means that Mr̥ga would not be seen, would not be visible, when Vriṣākapi goes to the house of Indra; but Yāska did not perceive what was intended by such a statement. He could not conceive that the constellation of Mr̥gaśiras would be invisible, when the sun in his upward march would be there at the beginning of the Devayāna, that is, when he comes to the house of Indra, and therefore he proposed to interpret Mr̥ga in the sense of “the sun" (Nirukta !3, 3). Mr̥ga, says he, is derived from mij to go, and means “going,” “one who goes and goes and never stops,’ in other words, “the sun.” Now, says his commentator, when a person goes into a house he cannot be seen by the outsiders. So Vr̥ṣākapi, when he goes to the house, cannot be seen by the people on the earth!

I do not think that I need point out the highly artificial and inconsistent character of this explanation. The word Mr̥ga, so far as I know, is no where used in the R̥gveda in this sense. Again, if the word Mr̥ga in the third verse of this hymn is to be understood as meaning an antelope, is it not natural enough to suppose that the same Mr̥ga is re ferred to in this verse? Then, again, how can the sun be said to become invisible to the people when he is in the house of Indra? Nor can he be invisible to Indra whose house he enters. What can, in such a case, be the propriety of the word udancha or “ rising upwards”? If Mr̥ga means the sun according to Yāska, we shall have to suppose that the rising sun was invisible, a clear contradiction in terms. I am sure Yāska, here, tried to explain away the difficulty in the same way as he has done in the case of Vr̥ka. But, in the present instance, the solution he has proposed is, on the face of it, highly inconsistent, so much so that even Sāyaṇa, does not follow it.

Sāyaṇa, however, has nothiag else to propose, and he quietly leaves the word Mr̥ga as it is and unexplained in his commentary. In short, both Sāyaṇa and Yāska have found the verse too difficult to explain. The meaning I have proposed explains the verse in a natural and a simple manner, and further corroborates the statement in the R̥gveda previously referred to vis., “Canis awakened the r̥bhus at the end of the year. "

In the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa i. 8. 2. 1, we are told that the Vedic priests, e.g., Maisoni, observed the position of the sun amongst stars in the morning, and, as the Nakṣatras disappear when the sun rises, they determined the position by observing what Nakṣatra rose a little before the sun. The present verse records an observation to make which no greater skill is required. It tells us that when Vr̥ṣākapi went to the house of Indra his Mr̥ga was not visible anywhere, thus clearly indicating that sun rose with Orion on that day. The word udancha is especially remarkable in this case. The sun must be udancha when he goes to the house of Indra, which, the burden of the song tells us, is in the northern or the upper part of the universe. This verse, therefore, clearly describes not merely the rising sun, but the position of the rising sun amongst the constellations when he is at the vernal equinox, the entrance of the house of gods or the house of Indra. Sāyaṇa and Yāska have completely missed this point and have made Vr̥ṣākapi represent the rising sun as an unnecessary rival to Savita (Nirukta 12. 12).

If the meaning I have proposed is correct, we have here a record of the position of the sun at the vernal equinox. I take pulvaghas in the original to mean “great sinner;” but it may be translated as Yāska proposes by “omnivorous” or “voracious.” But in either case I would take it as referring to the antelope’s spoiling the things of Indrāṇī. The point is that the sinning Mr̥ga would not be with Vr̥ṣākapi when he again goes to the house of Indra, and Indrāṇī would have no cause to complain of the presence of the odious Mr̥ga at the time.

VERSE 23.

पर्शु॑र् ह॒ नाम॑ मान॒वी
सा॒कं स॑सूव विंश॒तिम् ।
भ॒द्रं भ॑ल॒ त्यस्या॑ अभू॒द्
यस्या॑ उ॒दर॒म् आम॑य॒द्
विश्व॑स्मा॒दिन्द्र॒ उत्त॑रः ॥ १०.०८६.२३

Sāyaṇa translates, “O arrow I Manu’s daughter, named Parśu, gave birth to twenty (sons) together. Let her whose belly was big be happy! Indra is in the upper (portion) of the universe.” I cannot, however, understand what it means. Parshu, according to Sāyaṇa, is a Mr̥gī or a female antelope. But why address the arrow to give happiness to her ? Can it have any reference to the arrow with which Orion was killed ? Then who are these twenty sons ? Are they the same as twenty mentioned in verse 14 ? Is it likely that twenty alone are mentioned leaving the additional fifteen to be understood from the context?

The concluding verse undoubtedly appears to be benedictory. But I have not found a satisfactory solution of the above questions, Perhaps bhala meaning ‘auspicious,’ may be used for Vr̥ṣākapi, and Indra addressing him pronounces benediction on the female that gave birth to the yellow antelope and several other stars that are supposed to be either killed or swallowed by Indra in this hymn. But I cannot speak with certainty on the point and must leave the verse as it is.

Conclusion

Now let us see what are the leading features of the story of Vr̥ṣākapi and what they signify. We have seen that scholars differ in assigning the verses of the hymn to the different speakers, and here and there we meet with expressions and words which cannot be said to be yet satisfactorily explained. Some of the interpretations I have proposed may not again be acceptable to all. But these difficulties do not prevent us from determining the leading incidents in the legend, which may therefore be summarised somewhat as follows.

Vr̥ṣākapi is a Mr̥ga, and sacrifices are stopped where he revels. He is, however, a favourite of Indra, and consequently the latter, instead of punishing, follows him. Indrāṇī, who has herself been offended by the Kapi, now reproaches Indra for his over fondness for the animal and threatens to punish the beast by cutting off his head and letting loose a dog at his ear. Indra intercedes and Indrāṇī assures him that the punishment has not been inflicted on his favorite beast, but on someone else. Vr̥ṣākapi is now going down to his house and Indra, in bidding farewell to his friend, asks him to come up again to his (Indra’s) house, so that the sacrifices may be recommenced ; and, strange to say, that when Vriṣākapi returns, in his upward march to the house of Indra, the impertinent Mr̥ga is no longer to be seen! Vr̥ṣākapi, Indra and Indrāṇī thus finally meet in the same house, without the offensive beast, and the hymn therefore concludes with a benedictory verse.

There can be little doubt that the hymn gives a legend current in old Vedic days. But no explanation has yet been suggested, which accounts for all the incidents in the story or explains how it originated. Vriṣākapi is a Mr̥ga, and his appearance and disappearance mark the cessation and the recommencement of the sacrifices. The Indian tradition identifies him with the sun in one form or another and comparison with Greek Erikapacos point to the same conclusion. Our Vr̥ṣākapi or Mr̥ga must again be such as is liable to be conceived in the form of a head cut off from the body, and closely followed by a dog at its ear, unless we are prepared to treat the very specific threat of Indrāṇī as meaningless except a general threat. All these incidents are plainly and intelligibly explained by taking Vr̥ṣākapi to represent the sun at the autumnal equinox, when the Dog-star or Orion commenced the equinoctial year; and, above all, we can now well understand why Vr̥ṣākapi’s house is said to be low in the south and how his Mr̥ga disappears when he goes to the house of Indra - a point which has been a hard knot for the commentators to solve.

I, therefore, conclude that the hymn gives us not only a description of the constellation of Orion and Canis (verses 4 and 5), but clearly and expressly defines the position of the sun when he passed to the north of the equator in old times (verse 22); and joined with the legend of the r̥bhus we have here unmistakeable and reliable internal evidence of the hymns of the R̥gveda to ascertain the period when the traditions incorporated in these hymns were first framed and conceived. In the face of these facts it is impossible to hold that the passages in the Taittirīya saṁhitā and the Brāhmaṇas do not record a real tradition about the older beginning of the year.