Indo Europeanism and vedic myth

APPENDIX
INDO EUROPEANISM AND VEDIC MYTHOLOGY - SOME NOTES

(1) Comparative mythology is a natural extension of com parative linguistics A comparative study of the various laoguages of the wide region extending from Ireland in the west to India jo the east led to the assumption first of a common Indo-European (IE) language as the ancient ancestor of all those languages, and subsequently of a common IE people, who spoke that language, and of a common IE culture, particularly of common IE scugion and mythology Understandably enough, the study of Vedic language and Vedic religion and mythology served almost as the starting point of the two disciplines of comparative lingule stics and comparative mythology However, in the early years of the history of Vedic philology in the West, scholars like BOPP, BOHLEN, and BENFEY are seen to have evinced greater interest in the language of the Veda than in the religion and my thology of the Veda, though we do come across such stray speculations relating to comparative mythology as that Sāra meyau in the Rgieda are identical with Greek Kerberos, that Dionysos is to be understood as the joint divinity of dyu (day) and miś (night) (both these suggestions by BENFEY), and that the legend of the Panis and the cows is comparable to the myth of Cacus ard Evander (suggested by F ROSEN) Exen ROTH, who may be said to have inaugurated the era of critical Vedic scholarship with his worth 2x Litteratus wd Geschichte des Weda (1846), did not occupy lumself to any appreciable extent 1 Thesc notes were prepared for a paper which I was invited to present at the Indo Soviet Symposium on " Ethnic problems of the early bistory of the peoples of Central Asia and lacia in the second millennium BC, held at Dushanbe, USSR, on October 17 22, 1977 It was intended that these potes would be developed into a full rescarch paper after the reaction to them of the participants in the Symposuim had become known Unfortunately, however, for personal reasons, I could not attend the Symposium at Dushanbe 352 VEDIC MYTHOLOGICAL TRACTS with comparative mythology as such It is Adalbert KUHN who must be regarded as the true pioneer of comparative mythology with special reference to the Veda KUHN believed that, just as the JE peoples derived their respective languages from a common IE language, they also derived most of their mythological concepts from a common IE mythology He further believed that the etymologies of the names of the various Vedic gods provided ample material for identifying the IE elements in Vedic mythology In other words comparative linguistics and comparative mytho logy went hand in hand And, thirdly, he believed that most of the Vedic (and, therefore, IE) gods were personifications of natural powers and phenomena MAX MULLER also was an ardent exponent of this very kind of comparative mythology and based his theories about Vedic mythology on the three assumptions set forth by KUHN For instance, MAX MULLER accepted the equations Sārameyau = Hermeias, Saramā = Helena, Saranyu = Erionys, Parjanya=Perkunas (Lith), Usas=Eos, Bhaga=Bogu (old Slav ), Väta = Wotan, Vak = Vox, etc In bis Gifford Lectures on Anthropologica) Religion delivered at the University of Glasgow in 1891, MAX MULLER uttered these momentous words “If I were asked what I consider the most important dis covery which has been made during the nineteenth century with respect to the ancient history of mankind, I should say it was the simple etymological equation Sanskrit Dyaus-Pitar = Greek Zeus Pater = Latin Jupiter = Old Norse Tyr” One can hardly think of a more eloquent simultaneous glorification of the two disciplines of comparative linguistics and comparative mytho logy The nineteenth century witnessed the rise of several academic disciplines (including archaeology ), but the major contribution of that century must, indeed, be regarded as having been the con cept of an IE language family (Incidentally, it was Thomas YOUNG who, in 1813, introduced the term “IE: while reviewing Johano ADELUNG’s work Mithridates ) The view has, no doubt, been expressed from time to time, by linguisticians like TRUBETZKOY, SOLTA, PISANI, and ALLEN, that the assumption INDO-EUROPEANISM AND VEDIC MYTHOLOGY 353 of a single unitary Ur IE is by no means necessary for explaining the IE language family But, as THIEME has rightly pointed out, the IE languages have too many similarities to be explained by anything other than a common genetic origin Language is regarded as the most potent source for the study of a culture Language, according to KEARY, “holds within it far better than do tumuli or weapons, or articles of pottery or woven stuffs or ornaments, the records of long past times” CHILDE confirms this by stating that “language, albeit an abs traction, is yet a more subtle and pervasive criterion of indivi duality than the culture-group formed by comparing flints and potsherds of the ‘races’ of skull measures " This view clearly smacks of a partiality for the study of language as against archaeology The obvious limitations of linguistics must not be lost sight of (2) A kind of reaction against the approach to Vedic mythology exclusively from the point of view of comparative mythology was but to be expected John MUIR, for instance, in the fifth volume of his Original Sanskrit Texts (1872), seemed to insist on Vedic religion and mythology being studied primarily from the Vedic sources, the comparative methods being utilised, if at all, only secondarily Abel BERGAIGNE also was generally averse to the methods of comparative mythology which had been so much overworked by KUHN and MAX MULLER The my thology of the Vedic Aryans was, according to him, closely con nected with their peculiar sacrificial cult which showed hardly any TE influence HILLEBRANDT also firmly believed that Vedic mythology and Vedic ritual were essentially inseparable He fur ther insisted that etymology, even if correct (and one could not be too sure of its correctness’), was mythologically useless be cause the meaning which it furnished was so general that it rarely gave any sure clue to the character of a Vcdic god Similarly, though OLDENBERG had no objection to individual Vedic gods being traced back to tbeir IE forms, he rightly cautioned that in that connection one must free opeself from the realm of mere 45 354 VEDIC MYTHOLOGICAL TRACTS etymology According to OLDENBERG, Vedic religion must be viewed essentially and primarily as an Indian religion and not as a mere modification of IE religion He also emphasised the anthropological and ethnological factors in the development of Vedic religion and mythology (3) Though MACDONELL, BLOOMFIELD, and VON SCHR OEDER sought to revive the methods of comparative mythology in the study of Vedic religion and mythology, it came to be strongly reasserted (for instance, by PISCHEL and GELDNER ) that the Rgveda was predominantly an Indian document, that comparative linguistics was not necessarily a safe guide, and that the gulf between the earliest culture of the IE peoples of Europe and that of the Vedic age was such that no amount of phonetic equations could bridge it The unwarranted emphasis on the JE elements ia Vedic religion and mythology and the method of mere etymologising had consequently to be given up There also be came evident a growing tendency against the naturalistic inter pretation of Vedic mythology Among other tendencies which became prominent besides anti naturalism may be mentioned the awareness of the prevalence in Vedic religion of what might be called the ideology of primitive magic and the recognition of the non Aryan (non IE) elements 10 Vedic mythologyINDO-EUROPEANISM AND VEDIC MYTHOLOGY 355 (a) The Vienna scholars like KOPPERS aver that the IE problem is not just a problem of linguistics and archaeology but that it is also a problem of ethnology and religion history The religious patterns develop in conformity with the levels of culture For instance, following W SCHMIDT, KOPPERS suggested that, while cattle served as the economic basis of the ProIO IE people with their home in the Central Asian Steppes, the horse as a sacrificial animal was more estcemed (b) M ELIADE bas attempted a typological analysis based on the concept of archetypes coined by C G JUNG and applied to religious studies by Karl KARENYI and Erich NEUMANN (c) E BENVENISTE has sought to endow the methods of comparative linguistics with new precision and to apply them to the yocabulary of institutions in an attempt to lay bare the primary notions underlying those institutions In this way, new light is believed to have been throgn on the foundations of many sostitutions of the modern world in the fields of social structure and relations, economics law, and religion (d) Soviet scholars have emphasized the definite proximity between Indo Iranian (specially Iranian) and Slavonic vocabu lary for social and religious concepts TOPOROV has, for instance, drawn attention to what he calls Slavonic reminiscences of the Mithrac terminology and to the demon adversaries of Indra and their correspondences jo a Russian folk tale (Vyamsa Usnya ) TOPOROV and IVANOV have analysed the Indra and the Parjanya hymns in the Rgveda with a view to the reconstruction of the IE mythologeme of the storm god and his adversary They have pointed to the correspondence betreen Vedic Vetra Vala and the Slavonic god Veles (Incidentally, R JACOBSON believes that Veles is clearly related to Varuṇa both linguistically and mytho logically ) ELIZARENKOVA and TOPOROV have attempted a semiotic interpretation of Indra’s prominence in the Rgvedic pan theon and of its pre history TOPOROV has investigated the gods as they are enumerated in The Russian Primary Chronicle, in the Igor Tale and in various other works with special reference to the Ancient Slavonic pantheon (and not to cukemerization) and has 354 VEDIC MYTHOLOGICAL TRACTS etymology According to OLDENBERG, Vedic religion must be viewed essentially and primarily as an Indian religion and not as a mere modification of IE religion He also emphasised the anthropological and ethnological factors in the development of Vedic religion and mythology (3) Though MACDONELL, BLOOMFIELD, and VON SCHR OEDER sought to revive the methods of comparative mythology in the study of Vedic religion and mythology, it came to be strongly reasserted (for instance by PISCHEL and GELDNER) that the Rgveda was predominantly an Indian document, that comparative linguistics was not necessarily a safe guide, and that the gulf between the earliest culture of the IE peoples of Europe and that of the Vedic age was such that no amount of phonetic equations could bridge it The unwarranted emphasis on the IE elements in Vedic religion and mythology and the method of mere etymologising had consequently to be given up There also be came evident a growing tendency against the naturalistic inter pretation of Vedic mythology Among other tendencies which became prominent besides anti naturalism may be mentioned the awareness of the prevalence in Vedic religion of what might be called the ideology of primitive magic and the recognition of the non Aryan (non IE) elements 10 Vedic mythology (4) Such was the state of things when, nearly forty years ago, the discipline of comparative IE mythology was revived, but on different lines It has been pointed out that, instead of carry ing out minute historical research on the detailed development of the individual deities by forging links on the basis of sheer ety mological speculations and thereby patching up a ragged image composed of aimless bits of evidence, the new trends focussed attention on pattern and structure In other words, mythology was now studied in a structuralist way rather than in an ‘ato mistic’ way The emphasis had shifted from lexical analogues 10 structural similarities The following principal approaches may be mentioned as representing these new trends in comparative IE mythology INDO-EUROPEANISM AND VEDIC MYTHOLOGY 355 (a) The Vienna scholars like KOPPERS aver that the IE problem is not just a problem of linguistics and archaeology but that it is also a problem of ethnology and religion-history The religious patterns develop in conformity with the levels of culture For instance, following W SCHMIDT, KOPPERS suggested that, while cattle served as the economic basis of the Profo IE peoplc with their home in the Central Asian Steppes, the horse as a sacrificial animal was more cstecmcd (b) M ELIADE has attempted a typological analysis based on the concept of archetypes coined by C G JUNG and applied to religious studies by Karl KARÉNYI and Ench NEUMANN (c) E DENVENISTE has sought to endow the methods of comparative linguistics with new precision and to apply them to the vocabulary of institutions in an attempt to lay bare the primary notions underlying those institutions in this way, new light is believed to have been thrown on the foundations of many institutions of the modern world in the fields of social structure and relations, economics, law, and religion (d) Soviet scholars have emphasized the definite proximity between Indo Iranian ( specially Iranian) and Slavonic vocabu. tary for social and rcligious concepts TOPOROV has, for instance, drawn attention to what he calls Slavonic reminiscences of the Mithraic terminology and to the demon adversaries of Indra and their correspondences in a Russian folk-tale (Vyamsa Usnya ) TOPOROV and IVANOV have analysed the Indra-and the Parjanya. hymns in the Rgredu with a view to the reconstruction of the IE mythologeme of the storm god and his adversary They have pointed to the correspondeacc between Vedic Vetra-Vala and the Slavonic god Velcs (Incidentally, R JACOBSON believes that Veles is clearly related to Varuṇa both linguistically and mytho. logically ) ELIZARENKOVA and TOPOROV have attempted a semiotic interpretation of Indra’s prominence in the Rgvedic pan theon and of its prc history TOPOROY has investigated the gods as they arc enumerated in The Russian Priniary Chronicle, in the Igor Talc, and in various other works with special reference to the ancient Slavonic pantheon (and not to culiemerization) and his 856 VEDIC MYTHOLOGICAL TRACTS postulated the equations Stribogủ = Varuṇa Mitra, Perunnŭ = Indra, and Volosů = Asvinau He and ELIZARENKOVA have brought out the typological similarity of Usas to one concrete personage of the Baltic ( Lettish) folklore Damely, Usins (male) Usas is looked upon as not merely a poetic symbol of dawn but as a functional symbol having its roots in the mythology common to the Indo Iranians and the Balts Mention is also made in this connection of the cow symbolism which was so common among both these peoples A reference may further be made here to some other views of Soviet scholars relating to comparative JE mythology In connection with the cow symbolism, attention is drawn to the related concepts Lithuanian daina Avestan daēna, and Vedic dhena (dhenu, dhı) suggesting the close association of ritual aad liturgy with the cow symbolism so characteristic of Usas Inciden tally, the cow symbolism is said to have been fairly prominent in Slavonic marriage etc A typological study of Vedic Usas and Lettish Usins is said to prove that two comparable and isomorph figures appear in Vedic mythology and Lettish folklore ELIZA RENKOVA suggests that Agpi and Aśvins represent incomplete correspondences of Usins viewed as a solar figure TOPOROV and IVANOV speak of Byelorussian reflexion of a group of IE words connected with the storm god cult They point to Byelorussian linguistic and mythological parallel to Vedic Parjanya Studying the correlation between Indra and Varuṇa ELIZARENKOVA puts forth the hypothesis concerning the pre RV state, when the level of magic power represented by Mitra Varuṇa must have modelled all the three functions of gods (cf DUMEZIL) IVANOV draws attention to the ancient Indian myth of primeval names giving and its parallel in the Greek tradition, while TOPOROV tries to reconstruct the world egg’ myth (e) The discipline of comparative mythology has, in recent years, again come into its own, thanks mainly to the prolific efforts of Georges DUMÉZIL It is claimed that this new compa rative IE mythology seeks to unravel and define the conceptual structures common to the religious and social organization of the INDO-EUROPEANISM AND VEDIC MYTHOLOGY 357 early historical and pre literate IE-speaking people It is further claimed that the sociological approach, initiated by DUMÉZIL and zealously sponsored by WIKANDER, DE VRIES, and PUIIVEL, not only draws on the philological speculations of the past 150 years, but also incorporates the structuralist mode of thought of this century in such fields as linguistics, anthropology, folklore, and history of religion in a sense, DUMÉZIL’S methods are said to reflect the fusion of comparativist and sociological traditions DUMÉZIL starts from the Durkhelmian functional relation ship between social and sacred phenomena and arrives at his conception of tripartite division of IE social organization into priests, warriors, and food producers (that is, peasantry and arti sans) as the keystont of a common ideology wbich was a wide spread and unique trait in ancient Rome, Iran and India and which recurred also among the early Germans and Celts The conception of a social structure based on the distinction and hierarchisation of three functions gave rise to the threefold mythology in this trifupctional mythological pattern, DUMÉZIL speaks of (1) the top level of joint sovereigoty’, the magico-religious aspect of which is represented by Vedic Varuṇa, Roman Jupiter, and Germa nic Odia and the juridical aspect of which is represented by Vedic Mitra, Roman Dius Fidius, and Germanic Tyr, (11) the second level of ‘warrior’, which is represented by Vedic Indra ( Vedic Indra, it is sometimes suggested, represents the chivalrous aspect of this level and Rudra the fronzıcd aspect ), Roman Mars, and Germanic Thor, and (111) the third level of’ fertility, wealth, nourishment, reproduction, etc ’ represented by Vedic Asvipau, Roman Qurious, and Germanic Freyja, Frey, Njord, etc DUMÉZIL further extends his scheme to Celtic and Scandioavian mythology and folklore He also speaks of other aspects of triplicity such as 10 justice, war, and famine Among DUMÉZIL’s other mythological equations within this framework are Apām napat=Old Irish god Nechtan, Usas= Roman Mater Matula, Roman Angerona=Vcdic goddess of short days (RV V 40 5-8), Aditi=Fortuna Primigenia, Lua Mater=divine cliaracter of Nirti, Aryaman=Heros Eremon of VEDIC MYTHOLOGICAL TRACTS the Irish folk tales, Viṣṇu=Scandinavian Vidarr Incidentally, DUMÉZIL establishes the relationship between language and cul ture as a genctic rather than a generic model (f) Some other recent studies in comparative JE mythology have brought out the following points (1) Various springtime festivals among the IC pcopics arc shown to be similar (MANN) (12) Satires in Greek, Celtic Germanic, and Vedic poetry indi cate that the IE social behaviour was motivated more by a sense of public reputation than by the concept of private guilt ( WARD ) (111) The Indo Europeins envisioned the sky as a vault of stone, cf Sk aśman, sky and stone, Avestan asman, Lithuanian akmuo, Slavic kamien, Gothic hininis (But did the IE folk kaow stone vaults?) (iv) Water played a significant role in the burial rites of the IEs of the metal ages (v) The IE notion of society encom passed men as well as animals (Cf wro-peku, durpada-catuspada, also gotra) (yi) The Hittite word pankus would suggest that Vedic pañca ( as for instance, in pañca janah) had the sense of “totality (vi) Hellenic Hermes and Vedic Pusan represent a transposition into mythology and religion of the exchange and reciprocity (But it is Paon who is usually identified with Pusan ) (yil! ) RV (X 39 3), Videvdat (7 44), and Pındartc ode ( 5th cent BC) seem to suggest that among the lEs there must have existed three classes of medical specialists (correspondiog to the three social classes ) namely, those who cured by means of spells (for priestly class) those who cured by means of knives (for warrior class) and those who cured by means of herbs (for farmers, etc ) On account of the peculiar agglomerating” tendency of the Veda, these three categories of medical specialists are united in the figure of Asvipau (1x) The peculiarly close relationship bet ween the Vedic and the Baltic ideologies is due to the conservatism and archaic character of the latter in respect of language and way of life (x) The Vedic samlada suhtas, the Brāhmaṇa legends, and the post Vedic epic motifs have clear counterparts in Irish sagas (5) Out of the various new approaches in comparative IE INDO-EUROPEANISM AND VEDIC MYTHOLOGY 359 one which is perhaps most aggressive a a veritable independent tradition in comparative mythology, may be subjected to a brief critical examination It has been rightly pointed out that cultural reconstruclion, and proto ethno science in particular, must take account of the up-to date information from the relevant humanistic and natural sciences DUMÉZIL’S work based on Durkheimian theory, which latter, incidentally, is out of date, is said to represent a Degative example It has been further pointed out that much of DUMEZIL’s theoretical superstructure depends overly on highly abstract conceptions Again, DUMÉZIL’S assection that the tripartite social division did not originally exist among the peoples of antiquity who were not IE is difficult to accept Can “tripartition” be proved to be uniquely IE? Can it not be regarded as having been universally dictated by nature of things? According to BROUGH, for instance, ancient Jewish history provides us with not one but two distinct series of persons and events which are illuminated by a similar tripartite analysis There is also a wide spread tendency in popular literature towards a threefold characterization The ’three functions can thus by no means be said to be typically IE It cannot be even proved with certainty that this social stratification was common to all IE peoples While Indo-Ir evidence points to three rigidly defined classes, Roman evidence indicates only three general modes of activity (The contention that, though tripartition is an obvious division of responsiblities within a community, its formal secog Dion is specifically IE is hardly valid Similarly, had tripartition been the core of the IE society and pantheon, the lexical charac ter of the terms relating to it would have been preserved And even if it is granted that the IE social organization was composed of “three functions “, does it necessarily follow that the gods of the RV (among others) were “collective representa tions” of this social structure? Society cannot be the ‘stuff’ of the supernatural The way of life may define the character of religion and mythology. The hierarchical order of the three functions has varied in DUMÉZIL’s various explanations The same god is assigued 360 VEDIC MYTHOLOGICAL TRACTS different functions or more than one function (cf Zeus, Mithra ) in different contexts There is no unanimity of views among the Dumezilians in the matter of assigaing fupctions to dividities is the mutability of DUMÉZIL’s own views not indicative of the instability of his position? But the most glacing defect of DUMÉZIL’s theory is that his conception of functional tripartition is not supported by Vedic evidence For instance, lodra, as portrayed in Vedic mythology, has no real counterpart in any other IE mythology or language When DUMEZIL speaks of Mitra as the sovereign in bis clear, regal, calm, benevolent, sacerdotal aspect, and of Varuṇa as the sovereign 10 his assailant, sombre, inspiring, violent, terrible, war like aspect, one fails to understand on wbat textual evidence he has based his theory of such marked contrast between the two gods One would search in vain for Rgvedic passages in support of the long array of adjectives which the French mythologist has used Similar is the case in regard to DUMEZIL’s contention that horse is heavily connected with the Varuṇa half of sovereignty but absent from the Mitra half While suggesting the corres pondence between Scandinavian Vidart and Vedic Viṣṇu, DUMÉZIL seems to connect the word vsnu woh the preposition vi (denoting the idea of separation), when, in fact, that word has to be derived from the root vi (=to fly) indicating the original bird form of Viṣṇu DUMÉZIL refers to the Roman ritual but does not take into account the Vedic ritual which, incidentally, has developed independently of the IE 1ofuence Indeed, while explicating the character of a Vedic deity, he does not consider the entire Vedic material concerning that deity but selects only what suits his theory. As for some other points made by DUMÉZIL, it may be point ed out that the Vedic evidence does not support the assumption that Bhaga and Aryaman are minor sovereigns under Mitra, and Daksa and Amsa under Varuṇa There is also no clear reference in the Mahabharata to the three sins of Indra ( which are made to correspond with those of Tullus Hostilius, the third king of Rome, qud the Norse hero Starkadr) having been responsible for the INDO EUROPEANISM AND VEDIC MYTHOLOGY 361 birth of Yudhisthira (through the teas which Indra had lost on account of his first sin), of Bhima and Arjuna (through the lost vigorous manhood), and of Nakula and Sahadeva (through the lost beauty ) The fact that ancient Greek mythology reflects but few IE traits would seem scriously to vitiate DUMÉZIL’s theory For, as has been pointed out, despite the relative abundance of documen tary evidence as to the character of Grcek religion and mythology, it has proved all but impossible to sort out from it any overall structure comparable to the one which DUMEZIL claims to have discovered in Indo-Irapian, Italic, Norse, and Celtic traditions Ons really wonders as to what extent one can at all impute to the profoundly localized Greek and Indian traditions the IE mytholo gical inheritances And, out of the three factors, namely, diffu sion, independent invention, and common IE heritage, why are the first two altogether ignored ? Further, there is hardly any element of “religiosity” in the tripartite functional mythology One may also ask whether the religio mythological pattern of a people would remain unchanged in spite of that people s essentially changing environments DUMÉZIL seems to regard mythology as being static It is, in deed, difficult to believe that any mythological pattern could survive the various inevitable changes in social life DUMEZIL derives evidence indiscriminately from myth, ritual, epic, legend, folklore, history, etc How far is it proper to explain obviously historie cal events 10 terms of tripartition (as DUMEZIL sometimes does )? Further, DUMÉZIL often establishes correspondences on slender basis eg legend of Mudgala and Roman rules of divinanon, Viṣṇu and the Iranian entity Raśpu, Maruts and Zoroastrian Fravaśis, Roman Fordicidia (involving the sacrifice of a pregnant cow) and the sacrifice of astapadi in the Raja suya, circular temple in Rome and the circular manner in which Vedic sacrificial fires are set up DUMÉZIL’s methods are often procrustian and the correspondences postulated by him quite tenuous 46 362 VEDIC MYTHOLOGICAL TRACTS (6) Conclusion (1) Comparative linguistics (particularly etymologies of the names of the Vedic gods or mere phonetic cor respondences) should not be made the starting point of any study of Vedic religion and mythology Linguistics may be employed by way of corroborative evidence (or as negative evidence, for in stance, in order to show that the words varuna and ouranos are not derived from the same root) (11) Comparative mytholog too has but limited scope Indeed, Vedic mythology is mucl farther removed from IE mythology than Vedic language from I! language (111) One must guard against mistaking universal concepts for IE concepts (1) Exclusively naturalistic inter pretation of Vedic mythology is not warranted by Vedic evidence (y) The Dumezılıan pattern of functional tripartition provide too narrow a frame to contain all the variety and complexity o Vedic mythology (vi) The importance of anthropological and ethnological factors in the formation and development of mytho logy should not be underestimated (vii) Vedic mythology 1 by no means a static phenomenon It is essentially an evolutiona ry or growing mythology Its character is determined by th Vicissitudes in the life of the Vedic Aryaas (Vit) The IE ele ments in Vedic mythology as it emerges from the Vedic texts ar few, feeble, and faint Compared to the mythologies of som other IE peoples, the development of some of these element appears to have been arrested in Vedic mythology (as in the cas of Dyaus), while the nature of some others has undergone conspicuous change on account of the peculiar influences to whic they had been exposed (as in the case of Asvinau) The concept of Dyaus may be regarded as having been trul IE in origin Known differently in the mythologies of differer IE peoples as Zeus, Deipatyros, Ziu, Diespater, Jupiter, Tyr, etc this god was originally associated with heavenly and diviae light As such he was also linked with the idea of authority in coafor mity with the patriarchal IE society, he was called “father However, Dyaus was not elevated to the exalted position of th supreme god like his other counterparts The reason for thi seems to have been this. Dyaus represents one aspect of what maINDO-EUROPEANISM AND VEDIC MYTHOLOGY 363 be called cosmic religion. Among the proto-Aryans, there evoly ed another aspect of cosmic religion, Damely, that related to Rta and Varuṇa, which may be characterised as being peculiar to them and which may be presumed to have arrested the mythological development of Dyaus, The IEs had no Mother-Goddess as such who stood above the other divinities, though it is suggested that the fact that the words for earth in IE languages are usually feminine (Sk, prilivi, Gk. se, chion, Latin terra) may be indicating the idea of Mother Earth. Ağvinau provide perhaps the most striking justification for comparative IE mythology. The Divine Twins of the Vedic, Greek, and Baltic traditions (respectively, Aśvinau-Divo Napātā, Dios Kouroi, and Dieva Dēli ( in Latvian ) and Dievo Suneliai 1 in Lithuanian) are related not only mythologically but also ctymologically. Germanic evidence is newly derived from the heroic epic, Kudrun. The Iranian counterparts of Alvinau are believed to be Haurvatāt and Ameretāt. (Incidentally, the Aresta has demon Nahaithya ( Nāsatya ). This is so presumably because all divinities associated with warfare and with horse have been Tejected by the Zoroastrian religion.) Strangely enougb, DUMÉZIL secs the reflection of the Divine Twias also in Romulus-Remus. It is claimed that cach member of this Divine Pair has a distinctive character. The peculiar Vedic development of the mythology of the Divine Twins is characterised by the concept of Aditi attended upon by two cavaliers (es pointed out by PRZYLUSKI) and of thic honcy-whip of Aśvinau, Oac an speak of an IE prototype of horse-sacrifice; but the Vedic Afvamedha in its totality has to be viewed as an Indian de clopment on account of the inclusion in it of the elements of the pre-Aryap human sacrilicc. The parallclism between the Aśva. medha and the Roman October Equus is noteworthy. Also notc worthy is the sexual aspect of the ritc in Vedic and Celtic tradi. tions (Vodic: the queen and the horsc; Celtic : thc Ling and the 364 VEDIC MYTHOLOGICAL TRACTS mare) Among the Gauls, the proper name Epomeduos (Aśva. medha) is attested (1x) Vedic religion and mythology received their first distinc tive characterisation during the proto-Aryan period when the common ancestors of the Vedic Aryans, Iranian Aryans, and Anatolian Aryans lived together presumably in the region of Balkh The concept of Rta or cosmic order and the binder’ gods Asura Varuṇa and Mitra, the Soma cult, and the peculiar fire cult are some of the principal exclusive features of the newly evolved ‘Aryan’ religion The fire cult of the proto Aryans, for instance, was different from the cult of Roman Vesta and Greek Hestia which latter was essentially the cult of the hearth It may be noted that in those traditions in which the linguistic cognates of the word agni are attested (Latin igns Slavonic ognis) the counterparts of the Agni cult are not to be met with In the Iranian tradition, on the other hand, the Agai cuit exists, but not the linguistic coge nate of the word agni The Avestan word for fire, namely, alar, may, however, be connected with Vedic Agor’s epithet atharyu (x) The migration from Balkh to Saptasındhu and the early settlements in Saptasindhu, which had been beset with many im pedements (1rtrani) natural and human, gave rise to the mytho logy of irirahan Indra — the human hero who was transformed into a war god This was the result of mythologisation of history Understandably enough, the Rgveda, a major part of which cons titutes a saga of Aryan conquest and colonisation, is dominated by the figure of Indra (xi) Side by side with the hieratic religion centering round Varuṇa, Indra, Agni, and Soma, there existed several popular religious cults among the Vedic people Simuarly, in their new exwronments, the Yadio Aryans woofronted some pre Vedic non Aryan religious cults, which were widely spread and deeply rooted and which tliey could neither ignore nor over whelm They accommodated these popular and non Aryan cults into the framework of their religion and mythology Tlus becomes evident, for instance, in the mythology relating to Visou and Rudra. The obviously artificial association of the popular gods INDD-EUROPEANISM AND VEDIC MYTHOLOGY 365 with Indra, who, as it were, served as the philosophers’ stone in respect of the hieratic elevation of these gods, the tendentious suppression or transformation of somc of the original traits of the popular and non-Aryan religious ideologies, and the solarization of the originally non-solar divinities are some of the features of this process of hierarchisation of popular cults. [Tirst published: V. S. Apk Comm. Vol, Poona, 1978, 4-16.)