Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c10: Chapter VI. Orion and His Belt

The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c10

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VI. Orion and His Belt

c10.2

*Agrahâyana* = *Âgrayana* in the older works—Probable derivation of *hâyana*—The *Âgrayana* sacrifices—Their number and nature—Performed every half-year in Vasanta and Sharad—Greek legends of Orion—Their similarity to Vedic legends—German traditions and festivities—Stag and hind—Twelve nights—Dog-days—All of which indicate the commencement of the year in Orion—Dr. Kuhn's explanation is insufficient—The usual adjuncts of Orion—His belt, staff and lion's skin—The *avyaonghana* of Haoma in the Avesta—The *yajnopavîta* of the Brâhmans—Their sacred character probably borrowed from the belt of Orion or Yajna—Use of *mekhalâ*, *ajina* and *danda* in the Upanayana ceremony—Probably in imitation of the costume of Orion or Prajâpati, the first of the Brâhmans—Derivation of Orion from *Âgrayana*—Its probability—Phonetic difficulties—Conclusion.

c10.3

IN the last chapter I have quoted an observation of Plutarch that the Greeks gave their own name to the constellation of Orion, and have there discussed some Vedic legends which corroborate Plutarch's remarks and indicate that the vernal equinox was in Orion at that time. In the present chapter I mean to examine other legends which go to shew that the constellation of Orion was known and figured before the Greeks, the Parsis, and the Indians separated from their common home, and that the legends or the traditions so preserved, and perhaps the name of the constellation, can be naturally and easily explained only on the supposition that the vernal equinox was then near the asterism of Mrigashiras.

c10.4

I have already shown that *Âgrahâyni* if not *Agrahâyana*, can be traced back to Pânini's time, as the name of a Nakshatra, and that it is a mistake to derive it from the name of the full-moon day. We have now to see if we can trace back the word still further. The word *hâyana* does not occur in the Rigveda, and it may be doubted if the name *Agrahâyaṇî* was in use in the old Vedic days. *Hâyana* is, however, used in the Atharva Veda (viii. 2. 21 ; xi. 6. 17) and in the Brâhmaṇas ; and may be compared with Zend *Zavan* meaning winter. Pâṇini (iii. 1. 148) derives *hâyana* from *hi* = to go or abandon, after the analogy of *gâvana* and gives two meanings, *viz*, the grain ‘*vrîhi*’ and ‘time.’ Whether we accept this derivation or not, it is at any rate clear that the word was used in Pâṇini's days, to denote a division of time and a kind of grain, and I think we can better account for both these meanings of *hâyana* by connecting the word with *ayana* and *Agrayaṇa* or the half-yearly sacrifices. Dr. Geiger, speaking of the old Parsî calendar observes that “probably the half-year was more employed in civil life than the complete year.”* Now whether the observation be entirely correct or not, we can, I think at any rate, assume that the division of the year into two equal halves is an old one. I have already discussed the two-fold division of the year into *Devayâna* and *Pitṛiyâna* and its coincidence with the passage of the sun to the north and the south of the equator. *Ayana* in the sense of such a division thus appears to be an old word and by prefixing *h* to it we may easily get *hayana* subsequently changed into *hâyana* like the words in the Prajnâdi list, wherein this word was not included as it was derived by Pâṇini in a different way. The insertion and omission of *h* when followed by a vowel at the beginning of a word is not uncommon even in these days,* and there is nothing extraordinary if we derive *hayana* from *ayana*. Now by a natural process when we have two forms of a word or two derivatives of the same root they gradually come to be utilised for specific purposes, and so acquire distinct meanings. Sanskrit lexicographers class such words under *Yogarūḍha*, meaning thereby that etymology and convention have each a share in determining their denotation. *Hayana* might thus come to exclusively denote a complete year, while *ayana* continued to denote a half-year as as before.† When *ayana* thus became *hayana*, *Agrayana*, which all lexicologists derive from *agra* + *ayana*,‡ would be changed into *agra* + *hayana* = *Agrahayana*; and when *hayana* was changed to *hiyana* in a manner analogous to the words in the Prajnâdi list (Pan. v. 4. 38) as stated above, *Agrahayana* would be altered into *Agrahayana*. We can thus account for the double forms—*hayana* and *hiyana*, *Agrahayana* and *Agrahayana*—which we find given in Bōhtlingk and Roth's and other lexicons, while if we accept Pāṇini's derivation, *hayana* will have to be either thrown out as incorrect or derived otherwise. In Amara ii. 8. 52, *hayana* occurs as a different reading for *dayana* in the sense of a vehicle and Bhânu Dikshita derives it from *hay* to go; but we might as well ask if *hay*, *ay*, and *i*, all meaning to go, are not the different forms of the same root. As far as the form of the word is concerned we may therefore derive *hâyana* from *hayana* and the latter again from *ayana* and similarly *Agrahâyana* from *Agrahayana* and this again from *Agrayana*

c10.5

∗ Dr. Geiger's Civ. East, Iran., Vol. I., p. 152. Dr. Schrader makes a similar observation. “For all these reasons (most of which are philological) I believe we have the right to presuppose an original division of the Indo Germanic year into two seasons.” Preh. Ant. Ary. Peoples, Part IV., chap. vi., p. 302.

c10.6

∗ Cf. The derivation of the word 'history' from 'istory' in Max Müller's *Lectures on the Science of Language*, Vol. II., p. 329.

c10.7

† Zend *Zayanō*, denoting winter, probably preserves an older meaning, when *hayana* was used to denote the second of the two seasons (summer and winter) into which Dr. Schrader believes that the year was primevally divided. Some of the synonyms for the year in Sanskrit originally denoted particular season, *e. g.*, *Varshâ*, *Sharad*. *Samâ* and *Hâyana* may be similarly supposed to have been derived from the names of the half year or *ayana*.

c10.8

‡ This derivation would give us *Agrâyana* instead of *Agrayana* and native grammarians obtain the second form from the first by the interchange of the initial vowel with the following long *a*.

c10.9

I may, however, remark that the process which appears so simple according to the modern philological rules, was not recognized by the native grammarians. There are good many words in Sanskrit which can be thus easily derived on the principle of the insertion and omission of *h*. Thus we have *invakâ* and *hinvakâ* both meaning the stars on the top of Mrigashiras, and *atta* and *hatta* denoting a marketplace. But native grammarians, including Pânini, would not derive the words from each other, as we have done above in the case of *ayana* and *hayana*. Their method is to give two different roots for the two words, thus we have two Vedic roots *him* and *inva* or *hiv* and *iv*, both meaning to go, to please, the one giving us *hinvakâ* and the other *invakâ*. *At* and *hat*, *an* and *han*, *ay* and *hay*, *i* and *hi* are further instances of the principle adopted by the native grammarians in such cases. Really speaking this is not solving the difficulty, but only shifting it a stage backwards; for if any explanation is necessary to account for the double forms like *ayana* and *hayana*, it is equally required to explain why we should have the double roots like *ay* and *hay*, both meaning to go. But it appears that the native grammarians, having traced the words to their roots, did not push the matter further. With them *ina* is derived from *i* to go, *ayana* from *ay* to go, *hayana* from *hay* to go, and *hivana* from *hâ* to go.* Whether and how far we can dispense with some of these roots is an important philological question, but it is not necessary for us to discuss it here. It does not much affect the point under discussion whether *hayana* is derived from *ayana*, *i. e.*, *ay* to go, or from *hî* to go as Pāṇini has done. Etymologically both the words, *ayana* and *hayana*, mean "going" and when both came to be used to denote a division of time, it is natural to suppose that they soon acquired special meanings. Thus while *ayana* continued to denote the half year; *hayana*, which was comparatively a later word, might have been exclusively used to denote the complete year, and as the beginning of the first *ayana* was also the beginning of the year, *Ā(a)grayaṇa* would be naturally changed in'o *Ā(a)grahā(a)yaṇa* to express the beginning of the year. Whether we adopt Pāṇini's derivation or the principle of modern philology we thus arrive at the same result, and so far as our present inquiry is concerned we can therefore suppose that the various words, which may be represented by *Ā(a)gra(ā)yaṇa*, or *Ā(a)grahā(a)yaṇa*, are all transformations or derivations of *agra + ayana* = *Ā(a)grayaṇa*.

c10.10

∗ This method sometimes fails, and native grammarians who are not now at liberty to coin new roots, have to resort to the Prishodarâdi list. For example, we have two forms *ilvalâ* and *hilvalâ* as different readings for *invakâ* in Amara i. 3.

c10.11

²³ Of these *ilvalâ* can be derived from *il*, to sleep, though the root meaning is not suitable, but *hilvalâ* cannot be even so derived and Târânâthâ in his Vâchaspatya would derive or rather obtain the initial *h* by Prishodarâdi. Similarly cf. *Hintâla* = *tâla* + Prisholarâdi!

c10.12

Now as regards the meaning it appears to me that *ayana* at first denoted nothing more than the passage of the sun. Gradually it meant a division of time regulated by such passage. The *Âgrayana-ishtis* thus appear to have originally meant the two half-yearly sacrifices performed on the first day of each *ayana*, which seems to be regarded somewhat like the new year's day at present. Gârgya Nârâyana, in his commentary on Âshvalâyana's Shrauta Sûtras (i. 2. 9. 1.) derives *Âgrayana* from *agra + ayana*; but interprets it to mean a sacrifice which is followed by eating (*ayana*,) that is, which requires to be performed before the new harvest is used for domestic purposes. He thus takes *ayana* to mean eating, and as the *Âgrayaneshtis* in later works like Manu (iv. 27) were described as "New-harvest sacrifices," all commentators have adopted this explanation of the word. But it appears to me to be evidently of latter origin and invented to account for the nature of the sacrifice when owing to the falling back of seasons the *Âgrayaneshtis* came to be performed not at the beginning of each *ayana* as they should have been, but at wrong times. The necessity of such an explanation must have been still more keenly felt, when instead of two half-yearly sacrifices, the *Âgrayanaishtis* were performed thrice a year. Âshvalâyana, it is true, gives only two, one in Vasanta and the other in Sharad, the old beginnings of the Devayâna and the Pitriyâna and the real commencement of the two *ayanas* But he has mentioned three kinds of grain that may be used, *vrîhi*, *shyâmâka* and *yava* (i. 2. 9. 1,) and his commentator Gârgya Nârâyana observes that *yava* and *shyâmâka* are to be used simultaneously in Sharad (i.2. 9. 13). It appears, however, that the fact, that three kinds of grain were sanctioned for use, soon gave rise to three *Agrayana-ishtis*—one in Vasanta with *vrihi*; the second in Varshâ with *shyâmâka*, and the third in Sharad with *yava*. But that it is a practice of later origin is evident from a passage in the Taittirîya Saṃhitâ (v. 1. 7. 3) which states that "twice is grain cooked for the year," clearly meaning thereby that there were only two *Agrayana-ishtis* in a year when the new harvest was first offered to gods. I am therefore of opinion that originally there were only *two* half-yearly sacrifices at the commencement of each *ayana*, and as *vrihi* was used, on the occasion of the first of these *ishtis*, the word *ayana* or *hâyana* naturally came to denote the grain so used, and that *ayana* in *Agrayana* originally meant not eating as the later writers have imagined, but a half-year as the word usually denotes. This way of deriving and explaining the word is not a new invention. For notwithstanding the fact that *Agrayana* and *Agrahâyana* are explained by Târânâtha as referring to the sacrifice of grain and eating, yet he derives *Agrayana*, a word of the same group, from *agra* + *ayana* and explains it to mean "the Uttarâyana was in its front."* Even native scholars thus appear to be aware of the fact that *Agrayana* could be or was derived from *ayana* meaning the Uttarâyana. Indeed, we cannot otherwise account why the *Agrayaneshtis* were originally celebrated at the beginning of Vasanta and the end of Varshâ as stated by Âshvalâyana. The *Agrahâyanî* of Amara is thus traceable to *Agrayana* of the Vedic works; and perhaps it was the initial long vowel in the latter that might have been retained in the later form.

c10.13

It may, however, be asked if there is any evidence to show that *Agrayana* was used to denote a star in the Vedic works. That Amara, and long before him Pāṇini, understood *Agrahāyaṇī*, if not *Agrahāyaṇa*, to mean the Nakshatra of Mrigashiras is undoubted; and I think we might fairly infer therefrom that the meaning given by these writers must have come down to them traditionally. Every *ayana* must begin with some Nakshatra, and it is quite natural to suppose that *Agrayaṇa* must have gradually come to denote the star that rose with the first *ayana*. But I have not been able to find out a passage where *Agrayaṇa* is used in the Vedic works to expressly denote the constellation of Mrigashiras. I may, however, refer to the Taittiriya Sanhitā (vi. 4. 11. 1.) wherein the vessels (*grahas*) used for sacrificial purposes are mentioned as beginning with *Agrayaṇa* and considering the fact that two other vessels are named, as the words themselves denote, after the planets Shukra and Manthin,* we might suppose that *Agrayaṇa* came to be included in the list, not as the name of a deity, for it was not such a name, but as denoting, the star which commenced the year, or the half-year. The word *graha* which in the sacrificial literature denotes vessel has been used in later astronomical works to denote the planets, the number of which, including the sun and the moon, is fixed at nine, the same as the number of the vessels used for sacrificial purposes. It is not, therefore, improbable that *Agrahāyaṇī* or *Agrahāyaṇa* of the later writers was a transformation of *Agrayaṇa*, and that Mrigashiras, was so called in old times for sacrificial purposes. When the *Agrayaṇeṣṭis* lost their primary meaning, *Agrayaṇa* or *Agrahā-* yana naturally came to to be used more to denote the month when the sacrifice was performed than the Nakshatra at the beginning of the ayana, thus giving rise to the speculations previously discussed. But in whatever way we may explain the disappearance of Agrayana in the sense of Mrigashiras in the oldest Vedic works, the fact that in the days of Amara and long before him of Panini Agrahayani was used to denote the constellation of Orion remains unshaken, and we may safely infer therefrom that the meaning given by them was a traditional one.

c10.14

∗ See Vâchaspatya s. v. *Agrayana*.

c10.15

∗ See infra Chap. VII. In Taitt. San. iii. 1. 6. 3 the vessel is described as the vessel of *Agrayaṇa*, thus shewing that the vessel was named after *Agrayaṇa*, which must therefore be either the name of a deity or of a Nakshatra.

c10.16

We have already seen how legends gathered round the "antelope's head." It was the head of Prajapati wishing to violate his daughter, by which some understood the dawn, some the sky and some the star Aldebaran (Ait. Br. iii 33). Others built the story of Namuchi upon the same which placed Vritra, at the doors of hell; while a third class of legend-makers considered that the death of Prajapati was voluntary for the sacrificial purposes of the Devas. The following summary of the classical traditions about the death of Orion, taken from Dr. Smith's smaller Classical Dictionary, will show how strikingly similar they are to the old Vedic legends.

c10.17

"The cause of Orion's death is related variously. According to some, Orion was carried off by Eos (Aurora), who had fallen in love with him; but as this was displeasing to the gods, Artemis killed him with an arrow in Ortygia.* According to others, he was beloved by Artemis and Apollo† indignant at his sister's affection for him, asserted that she was unable to hit with her “arrow a distant point which he showed her in the sea. “She thereupon took aim, the arrow hit its mark, but the “mark was the head of Orion, who was swimming in the “sea. A third account, which Horace follows, states that he “offered violence to Artemis, and was killed by the god- “dess with one of her arrows.”

c10.18

∗ Homer Od. v. 121, 4. See Gladstone's Time and Place of Homer, p. 214. † Ov. Fast v. 537.

c10.19

Thus love, arrow and decapitation which are the three principal elements in the Vedic legends, are all present in these traditions. There is another story which says that Orion was stung to death by a scorpion; but this is evidently intended to represent the fact that the constellation of Orion sets when that of Scorpion rises in the east, and is therefore of later origin when the zodiacal signs were adopted by the Greeks.

c10.20

There are other traditions which point out the position of Orion in the course of the year. The cosmical setting of the constellation was believed to be an indication of stormy weather and the constellation was called *imbrifer* or *aquosus* in the same way as the *Shvâ* in the Vedas is said to commence the year, while Shunasirau are invoked along with Parjanya for rain. The German traditions are, however, more specific, and I take the following abstract of the same by Prof. Kuhn communicated to the late Dr. Râjendralâl Mitra and published by the latter in his “Indo-Aryans,” Vol. II., pp. 300-302 :—

c10.21

“Both in our ancient and modern popular traditions, there is universally spoken of the Wild Hunter, who sometimes appears under the name of Wodan or Goden, and was, in heathenish times, the supreme god of the ancient German nations. This god coincides, both in character and shape with the ancient Rudra of the Vedas (*vide* p. 99).

c10.22

Now there is a class of traditions in which this ancient God is said to hunt a stag and shoot at it, just as Rudra in the Brâhmaṇas is represented as shooting at the *ṛishya* and *rohit*. The stag in German mythology, is the animal of the god Freyr, who, like Prajâpati, is a god of the sun, of fertility, &c., so that the shot at that stag is to be compared with Rudra's shooting at the *ṛishya* = Prajâpati. I have further endeavoured to show that some indications exist in the mediæval penitentials of Germany and England, which give us to understand that at the close of the old year and at the beginning of the new one (we call that time "die-zwolften" or the twelve days, *dvâdashâha* of the Indians) there were mummeries performed by the country people, in which two persons seem to have been the principal performers, the one of whom was disguised as a stag while the other was disguised as a hind. Both represented a scene, which must have greatly interested and amused the people, but very much offended the clergy, by its sordid and hideous character; and from all the indications which are given in the text, communicated by me (pp 108-180), we may safely suppose that the chief contents of this representation was the connection of a stag and a hind (or of an old woman), which was accompanied by the singing of unchaste songs. From English customs at the New-Year's Day, we may also infer that the hunter's shooting at this pair was even a few centuries ago, nay, is even now, not quite forgotten. Now as the time of the "twelve days" was with our ancestors the holiest of the whole year, and the gods were believed to descend at that time from heaven and to visit the abodes of men, we may firmly believe that this representation also was a scene of the life of the Gods. I hope to have thus proved that the Brahmanical and the German traditions are almost fully equal, and I have finally attempted to lay open the idea from which the ancient myth proceeded. According to my explanations, our common Indo-European ancestors believed that the sun and the day-light (which was, so to say, personified under the image of various animals, as a cow or bull, a horse, a boar, a stag), was every day killed in the evening and yet re-appeared almost unhurt, the next morning. Yet a decay of his power was clearly visible in the time from midsummer to midwinter, in which latter time, in the more northern regions he almost wholly disappears, and in northern Germany, during the time of the twelve days, is seldom to be seen, the heavens being then usually covered all over with clouds. I have therefore supposed, it was formerly believed that the sun was then completely destroyed by a God, who was both a God of night and winter as also of storm, Rudra-Wodan. The relics of the destroyed sun, they seem to have recognised in the brightest constellations of the winter months, December and January, that is, in Orion and the surrounding stars. But when they saw that they had been deceived and the sun re-appeared the myth gained the further development of the seed of Prajâpati, from the remnants of which a new Âditya as well as all bright and shining Gods were produced. I have further shown that both Greek astronomy and German tradition proved to be in an intimate relation with the Brahmanical tradition; for the former shows us, in almost the same place of the celestial sphere, a gigantic hunter (Mrigavyâdha, Sirius; Orion, the hunter Mrigashiras); whilst the latter has not yet forgotten that Saint Hubertus, the stag-killer, who is nothing but a representative of the God Wodan, who had, like Rudra, the power of healing all diseases (the *bhiṣhaktama* of the Vedas) and particularly possessed cures for mad dogs which not only were his favourite companions, but were also in near connection with the hottest season of the year, when the declining of the sun begins, the so-called *dog-days.*"

c10.23

Here is an equally striking coincidence between the German and the Vedic traditions. The mummeries were performed "at the close of the old year and at the beginning of the new one," and the stag and the hunter had therefore something to do with it. Prof. Kuhn's explanation does not clear up this point satisfactorily, nor does it give any reason why the festivals were celebrated only during the *twelve days* preceding the new year. As regards the decay of the sun's power it must have been observable during the whole season and does not therefore in any way account for the selection of 12 particular days. As for the *dvādaśāha* of the Indians, it is the period during which a person consecrates himself for a yearly sacrifice and so must naturally precede the commencement of the new year when the annual sacrifice commences, and I have previously shewn that it represents the difference between the lunar and the solar years; in other words, they were what we may now call the intercalary days added at the end of each year to keep the concurrence of the lunar and the solar measures of time. The German traditions therefore can be better accounted for, if we suppose that they are the reminiscences of a time when the stag and the hunter actually commenced the year. This also explains why the dog-days were considered so important. When Sirius or the dog-star rose with the sun at the beginning of the year, the dog-days, or rather the days when the dog was not visible, were the new-year's days, and as such they were naturally invested with an importance which they never lost. I have already alluded to the passage in the Rigveda which states that the dog awakened the Ribhus, or the gods of the seasons, at the end of the year, and this appears to me to be the origin of what are still known as dog-days in the western countries. Owing to the precession of the equinoxes and by neglecting to maintain the correspondence of the seasons the days now fall during a period different from the one they did of old, but such differences we find in all cases where ancient rites or festivals are preserved. The feast of the manes, which the Parsis and the Hindus seem to have commenced together when the summer solstice occurred in the month of Bhadrapada, now no longer coincides with the summer solstice; but for that reason we cannot say that it might not have occured originally at the summer solstice, especially when the later supposition is supported by other reliable evidence, and gives a better origin of the festival. I am not therefore disposed to accept Prof. Kuhn's explanation as satisfactory, and am of opinion that the German traditions are the reminiscences of a time when the vernal equinox was in Orion, the hunter. We cannot otherwise account why the mummeries and festivals should have been celebrated during the twelve days at the end of the old and the beginning of the new year.

c10.24

It will, I think, be evident from this that the Greeks and Germans have preserved the memory of the days when the year commenced with the vernal equinox in Orion. I have previously shown that the Parsi primitive calendar, as fixed by Dr. Geiger, points to the same conclusion. The Parsis, the Greeks, the Germans and the Indians therefore appear to have separated after these traditions were formed and after Orion was figured, and recognised as the Agrayana constellation. I do not think that any more traditional coincidences are necessary to establish the Aryan origin of the constellation of Orion, as well as its position at the vernal equinox in old days. I shall, however, give one more coincidence which on account of its peculiar nature is alike interesting and important.

c10.25

In the Greek mythology Orion, after his death as above described, was placed among stars, "where he appears as a giant with a girdle, sword, a lion's skin, and a club."* Now, if as remarked by Plutarch, Orion is an original Greek name, we should find some traces of these various adjuncts of Orion or at least some of them in the old Iranian and Indian works. Do we so find them? I think we do, only if we look for them with a little more attention and care, for the transformation is more specific and peculiarly out of the way in this case. In the Vedic works Soma is said to be the presiding deity of the asterism of Mṛigashiras. Soma is Haoma with the Parsis. The 26th verse in the Haoma Yasht is as follows:—

c10.26

Frâ te Mazdâo barat paurvanim aivyâonghanem steher-paesanghem mainyu-tâstem vanghuhim-daenâm Mâzdayasnim.

c10.27

which has been thus rendered by Mr. Mills in his translation of the Zend Avesta, Part III., in the Sacred Books of the East Series (P. 238):—"Forth has Mazda borne to thee, the star-bespangled girdle, the spirit-made, the ancient one, the Mazda-Yanian Faith." Dr. Haug takes *paurvanim* in the original to mean "leading the *paurvas*," which latter he believes to be the Persian name for the Pleiades, which is variously written *parù*, *parvah*, *parvîn* and *parvîz*.† This keen-sighted suggestion of Dr. Haug has been pronounced by Mr. Mills as "doubtful, and refuted by Vistasp Yasht 29, where Darmesteter renders a word probably akin as 'the many.'" But excepting this difference of opinion all agree in holding this Yasht to be an ancient one, "a reproduction of an Aryan original,"* and that the verse above given contains a description of the belt of Orion. Orion is Haoma, the Soma of the Indians which is its presiding deity in the Vedic works, and the above verse states that God has given a natural star-studded girdle to Haoma. This girdle is, therefore, no other than the belt of Orion. The verse in the Haoma Yasht, however suggests more than it denotes. Both Haug and Mills have used the word 'girdle' in the translation. But whether we use 'girdle' or 'belt,' it hardly conveys the idea of the original *awyaonghanem*. It is a striking instance of how in translations we sometimes lose the force of the original. *Aiwyaonghana* is a Zend word for the *kusti*, or the sacred thread of the Parsis, which they wear round their waist. The 'girdle' or the 'belt' of Orion is thus said to be his *kusti*, and though we may have no more traces of the 'belt' or the 'club' of Orion in the Parsi scriptures, the above verse at once directs our attention to the place where we may expect to find the traces of Orion's belt in the Indian works. I have before pointed out that Orion or Mrigashiras is called Prajapati in the Vedic works, otherwise called Yajna. A belt or girdle or a piece of cloth round the waist of Orion or Yajna will therefore be naturally named after him as *yajnopavita*, the *upavita*, or the cloth of Yajna. The term, however, now denotes the sacred thread of the Brahmans, and it may naturally be asked whether it owes its character, if not the origin, to the belt of Orion. I think it does on the following grounds.

c10.28

∗ See Smith's Dictionary of Classical Mythology. † Dr. Haug's Essays on the Parsis, p. 182.

c10.29

∗ See Sacred Books of the East Series, Vol. XXXI., Zend Avesta, Part III., p, 238.

c10.30

The word *yajnopavita* is derived by all native scholars from *yajna* + *upavita*; but there is a difference of opinion as to whether we should understand the compound to mean an ‘*upavita* for *yajna*,’ *i. e.*, for sacrificial purposes, or, whether it is the ‘*upavita* of *yajna*.’ The former is not incorrect, but authority is in favour of the latter. Thus the Prayoga-writers quote a *smriti* to the effect that “the High Soul is termed *yajna* by the *hotris*¹*; this is *his* *upavita*; therefore, it is *yajnopavita*.” A mantra, which is recited on the occasion of wearing the sacred thread means, “I bind you with the *upavita* of *yajna*;”²† while the first halt of the general formula with which a Brāhman always puts on his sacred thread is as follows:—

c10.31

¹ * पारिजाते स्मृतिसारे:—

c10.32

² † See Tārānātha's Vāshaspatya s. v. *upavita*; and Sānkhyāyana Grihyasūtra, ii. 2. 3, where the mantra is given as follows:—

c10.33

यज्ञोपवीतं परमं पवित्रं प्रजापतेर्यत्सहजं पुरस्तात् ।

c10.34

The mantra is not to be found in any of the existing Sanhitās, but is given in the Brahmopanishad and by Baudhāyana. This verse is strikingly similar to the verse quoted above from the Haoma Yasht. It says, “*yajnopavita* is high and sacred; it was born with Prajāpati, of old.” The word *purastāt* corresponds with *paurvanim* in the Avesta verse and thus decides the question raised by Dr. Haug, while

c10.35

यज्ञख्य: परमात्मा य उच्यते चैव होतृभि: ।
उपवीतं यतोस्येदं तस्माद्यज्ञोपवीतकम् ॥

c10.36

यज्ञोपवीतमसि । यज्ञस्य त्वा यज्ञोपवीतेनोपनह्यामि ।

c10.37

In the Pāraskara Grihyasūtra, ii. 2. 11, both these mantras, *यज्ञोपवीतं परमं* & c., and *यज्ञस्य त्वा* &c., are given.

c10.38

sahaja,* born with the limbs of Prajâpati, conveys the same meaning as mainyu-tâstem. The coincidence between these verses cannot be accidental, and it appears to me that the sacred thread must be derived from the belt of Orion. Upavîta, from ve to weave, literally means a piece of cloth and not a thread.† It appears, therefore, that a cloth worn round the waist was the primitive form of yajnopavîta, and that the idea of sacredness was introduced by the theory that it was to be a symbolic representation of Prajâpati's waist-cloth or belt. In the Taittirîya Sanhitâ (ii. 5. 11. 1.) nivîta, prâchînâvîta and upavîta, three words which at present denote the position of the sacred thread on the body of a Brâhman, are defined, but the Mîmânsakas‡ understand them to apply not to the sacred thread, as we now wear it, but to a piece of cloth or dear-skin, which everyone must use at the time of sacrificing. It appears, therefore, that in the oldest times the Brâhamans wore a piece of cloth or deer-skin and not a thread. This conclusion is further strengthened by the fact, that according to the ritual given in the Sûtras, no sacred thread is mentioned in the description of the ceremony of Upanayana; § while the investiture with the thread is looked upon at present as the principal part of that ceremony. We have still retained a memory of this old practice in the performance of obsequies and at the time of performing sacrifices, when a piece of cloth is worn in addition to the sacred thread. Devala* says that out of the three sacred threads to be worn, one is a substitute for the upper garment, thus clearly indicating what the old practice was. But this is not the place to go into these details. It is enough for our purpose to notice that *yajñopavīta* originally, meant a piece of cloth, and that in the times of the *smṛti*-writers, it came to be symbolically represented by the sacred thread, thrice twisted and thrice folded. There is, however, another difficulty which must be here noticed. The Parsis wear their sacred thread round the waist, while the Brâhmans usually wear it over the left shoulder and across the body, leaving the right arm free (*i e.*, *upavīta*). The Parsis may thus be said to wear their sacred thread after the manner of *nivīta*; but in the case of the Brâhmans, it may be questioned if their manner of wearing the thread corresponds to the position of Orion's belt. From the passage in the Taittirīyâ Saṃhitâ referred to above, it will, however, be seen that *nivīta* and not *upavīta*, is the position of the thread there prescribed for all human actions, or, in other words, for doing the ordinary business of life. *Nivīta* has been defined by all later writers to mean the position of the sacred thread passing round the neck, over both the shoulders and dropping down in front. A reference to Kumârila Bhaṭṭa's Tanra Vârtika (I. 4. 2.), will, however, show that *nivīta* also meant "tying round the waist," and Kumârila observes that "tying round the waist is the most convenient position for all kinds of work.”* Ânandagiri and Govindânanda in their commentaries on Shankara’s Bhâshya on the Brahmasûtras (iii. 4. 19.), give the same explanation, from which it appears that the Brâhmans, like the Parsis, once wore the thread around the waist, thus literally girding up their loins when they had to do any work. The sacred thread of the Parsis and the Brâhmans thus seems to be a symbolical representation of Prajâpati’s girdle or Orion’s belt in every respect. The various stages, by which the original piece of cloth round the waist dwindled into a thread, are interesting and instructive from a ceremonial point of view, but not being relevant to the present inquiry, I do not mention them here.

c10.39

∗ सहज स्वभावभूतं अथवा देहेन्द्रियादिभिः सहोत्पन्नम् । Shankarananda's com. on Brahmopanishad (MS.). † Cf. Medhâtithi on Manu, ii, 44. ‡ Cf. Jaiminîya nyâya mâlâ vistâra, iii. 4. 1. अत्र प्रतीयमानं निवीतादिकं वासोविषयं । न त्रिवृत्सूत्रविषयं । “अजिनं वासो वा दक्षिणतः उपवीय” (Taitt. Arn., ii. 1) इत्यनेन सदृश्त्वात् । वस्त्रस्य च निवीतं सौकर्याय प्राप्तम् Taitt. Arn. ii, 1 is the only passage in the Vedic works which fully describes the positions निवीतं &c., and it expressly mention वास and अजिन, but not सूत्र. § See Târânâtha's Vâchaspatya s. v. upavîta, Also Âshvalâyan Grihya Sutra i. 19, 8-10-12, where ajina, mekhalâ and danda ar alone mentioned.

c10.40

∗ तृतीयमुत्तरीयार्थं वस्त्राभावे तदिष्यते ।

c10.41

* As the passage is important as a record of an obsolete practice I give it here in the original—

c10.42

निवीतं केचिद्वलणिकाबंधं स्मरंति । केचित्पुनः परिकरबंधं ।
तत्र गलवेणिकाबंधो युद्धादन्यत्र न प्राप्नोति । परिकरबंधस्तु
सर्व कर्मस्वव्यग्रताकरत्वात्प्राप्त इति ।

c10.43

The word स्मरंति in this passage indicates that the writer had a स्मृति text in his mind. Mâdhava in his commentary on the Parashara Smriti (Cal. Ed., p. 450) quotes Kâtyâyana and Devala as follows—

c10.44

कात्यायनः—पृष्ठवंशे च नाम्नां च यधृतं विंदते कटिम् ।
तद्वार्यमुपवीतं स्यान्नालं न चैच्छितम् ॥
देवल—स्तनादूर्ध्वमधो नाभेः नैव धार्य कदाचन ।

c10.45

I think these verses clearly indicate that the thread must be worn below the breast and above the navel, and going round the whole waist. As the practice has long since been obsolete, the verses have been much misunderstood by later writers. The author of the स्मृत्यर्थसार does, however, clearly state that there are two ways of wearing the thread, first over the shoulder as described in the Taitt. Arn. ii. 1; and (यद्वा in the original) second as given in the above texts of Kâtyâyana and Devala. This view has also been adopted by the author of the संस्कारकौस्तुभ.

c10.46

But the sacred thread is not the only trace of Orion's dress that we have retained. A reference to the Upanayana ceremonial will show that we have preserved belt, staff, skin, and all. Every boy, who is the subject of this ceremony, has to wear a *mekhalā* or grass cord round his waist, and we still put three knots to this cord just over the navel, as it were, to represent the three stars in the belt of Orion.* In the Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā 4. 10, we are told that the knot of the *mekhalā*, when it is worn for sacrificial purposes, is to be tied with the mantra, "you are the knot of Soma,"† which Mahidhara explains as "a knot dear to Soma;" but which remembering that we have a similar verse in the Haoma Yasht, may be naturally interpreted to mean the knot of Soma, the presiding deity over the constellation of Orion. Then every boy whose *upanayana*, or the thread ceremony as it is popularly understood, is performed, must carry with him a stick of the *palāsha* or the fig-tree and the same passage in the Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā says that for sacrificial purposes the stick (*daṇḍa*) is to be taken in hand by the Mantra, "O wood! be erect and protect me from sin till the end of this *yajña*." Here again Mahidhara interprets *yajña* to mean sacrifice for which the staff is taken up.

c10.47

† सोमस्य नीविरसि ।

c10.48

* In the Prayoga works we have (and we still do so) — मेखलां त्रिरावर्त्य नाभिप्रदेशे ग्रन्थित्रयं कुर्यात् ।

c10.49

In the Sānkhyāyana Gṛhya Sutra ii. 2. 2, we are told that the knots of the *mekhalā* may be one, three or five, and the commentator adds that the knots should be equal in number to one's *pravaras*. The author of the Saṃskāra Kaustubha quotes a *smṛti* to the same effect. But the explanation is unsuited to the first case, *viz.*, of one knot, and I am inclined to take it to be a later suggestion.

c10.50

But I think here also we may trace a reference to Prajâpati alias Yajna. The third accompaniment of a newly initiated boy is the deer-skin. Theoretically it is necessary that he should be fully clothed in a deer-skin, but practically we now attach a small piece of deer-skin to a silk thread and wear this thread along with the *Yajnopavîta*. *Mekhalâ*, *ajina*, *danda* (the girdle, the skin and the staff) are thus the three distinguishing marks of a newly initiated boy; and what could they mean, except that the boy is made to assume the dress of Prajâpati as far as possible. To become a Brâhman is to imitate Prajâpati, the first of the Brâhmans. Prajâpati assumed the form of a deer, so the boy is clothed in a deer-skin; Prajâpati has a girdle round his waist (the belt of Orion), so has the boy his *mekhalâ* with three knots over the navel; and lastly, Prajâpati has a staff, and so the boy must have it too.

c10.51

∗ Dr. Schrader in his Preh. Ant. Ary. Peop., Part iv., Chap viii., concludes that the primitive dress consisted of a piece of woolen or linen cloth thrown round the shoulders like a mantle, and a girdle. The history of *yajnopavîta*, the way of wearing it as described in Taitt. Arn. ii. 1., and Orion's dress, as conceived by the Greeks, point to the same conclusion. I have already alluded to the difficulty of explaining how *upavîta*, which literally means a cloth, came to denote a thread. If *yajnopavîta* be taken to have originally meant *yajna* and *upavîta*, and *yajna* be further supposed to have once denoted a girdle this difficulty is removed. Av. *yasto* Gk. *zostos* Lith. *justas*, meaning "girded" point to an original root *jos*, Av. *yangh*, from which Gk *zonu*, Av. *aiv yâonghana* may be derived (S. Ficks' Indo Germ. Wort). If we suppose that the root appeared as *yaj* in Sanskrit and derive *yajna* from it, like Gk, *zonu*, we may take *yajna* to mean a girdle and translate अयज्ञोपवीती कथं ब्राह्मण (Jâbâl. Upa. 5.) by "how can a Brâman be without a girdle and cloth?" If this suggestion be correct, then *yajnopavîta* must be

c10.52

Thus in their Upanayan ceremony the Brāhmans have fully preserved the original characteristic of the dress of Prajāpati or Orion. The Brāhman *baṭu* (boy) does not, however, carry a sword as Orion is supposed to do, and the skin used by the boy is deer's and not lion's. I cannot account for the first of these differences except on the ground that it might be a later addition to the equipment of Orion, the hunter. But the second might be traced to a mistake similar to that committed in the case of the seven *ṛkṣas*. The word *Mriga* in the Rigveda, means according to the Sāyaṇa both a lion and a deer, and I have already referred to the doubts entertained by modern scholars as to the animal really denoted by it. *Mrigājina* is therefore likely to be mistaken for lions skin. There is thus an almost complete coincidence of form between Orion as figured by the Greeks and the boy whose *upanayana* is recently performed, and who is thus made to dress after the manner of Prajāpati. I do not mean to say that a piece of cloth was not worn round the waist before the constellation of Orion was so conceived; on the contrary, it is more natural to suppose that the ancient

c10.53

taken to have meant nothing more than a mantle and a girdle in primitive times and that the primitive people invested Orion with a dress similar to their own. When Orion came to be looked upon as a celestial representation of Prajāpati, Orion's dress must have attained the sacred character which we find preserved in the sacred thread of the Parsis and the Brāmans. I, however, know of no passage in the Vedic literature where *yajna* is used in the sense of a girdle, and hence the above suggestion must be considered as very doubtful. But it may be here mentioned that in Marāṭhī we use the word *jānve* to denote the sacred thread. This word is evidently derived from Sk. *yājna*, Prākrita *janno*. Perhaps we have retained only the first word of the long compound *yajnopavita*.

c10.54

people invested Orion with their own dress. But the coincidence of details above given does, in my opinion, fully establish the fact that the sacred character of a baṭu's dress was derived from what the ancient priests conceived to be the dress of Prajâpati. With these coincidences of details, still preserved, it is impossible to deny that the configuration of the constellation of Orion, is of Aryan origin and that the Hellenic, the Iranian and the Indian Aryas must have lived together when these traditions and legends were formed.

c10.55.1

And now it may be asked that if the Eastern and the Western legends and traditions of Orion are so strikingly similar, if not identical, if the dress and the form of the constellation are shewn to have been the same amongst the different sections of the Aryan race, and if the constellations at the feet and in front of Orion—Canis Major and Canis Minor, Kuon and Prokuon,* Shvan and Prashvan, the Dog—the Foredog—are Aryan both in name and traditions; in short, if the figure, the costume, the attendants and the history of Orion are already recognised as Aryan is it not highly probable that the name, Orion, should itself be a transformation or corruption of an ancient Aryan word? Orion is an old Greek name. Homer in the fifth book of Odyssey speaks of the bold Orion and the traditional coincidences, mentioned above, fully establish the probability of Plutarch's statement that the word is not borrowed from a non-Aryan source. Two of the three names, mentioned by Plutarch Canis (Kuon) and Ursa (Arktos) have again been phonetically identified with Sanskrit shvan and ṛikṣhas, and we may, therefore, legitimately expect to find Orion similarly traced back to an Aryan original. The task, however, is not so easy as it appears to be at the first sight. The Greek mythology does not give us any help in the solution of this question. It tells us that a hunter by name Orion was transformed after his death into this constellation which consequently came to be called after him.

c10.55.2

But this is surely no satisfactory explanation Who is the hunter that was so transformed? There are many mythological proper names in Greek which can be traced back to their Aryan originals, and why should Orion be not similarly derived? The story obviously points to the Vedic legends of Rudra, who is said to be still chasing Prajāpati in the heavens. The Vedic legend has fully preserved all the three elements in the story—the hunter Rudra, the dog and the antelope's head, while the Greeks appear to have retained only the hunter and the dog with nothing to hunt! But that does not preclude us from discovering the identity of these legends and the question is whether we can suggest a Sanskrit word which will give us Orion according to the already established phonetic rules. I know of no name of Rudra from which Orion can be so derived. But if we look to the names of the constellation of Mrigashiras, we may, I think, in the absence of any better suggestion provisionally derive Orion from Sanskrit Āgayaṇa the original of Agrahāyaṇa; The intial long ā in Sanskrit may be represented by omega in Greek as in Sk. āma, Gk. ōmos, Sk. āshu, Gr. kus, and the last word ayana may become ion in Greek. It is not, however, so easy to account for the dropping of g before r in the body of the word. Comparison of Sk. grivan which Gk. laos and of Sk. ghrāna with Gk.

c10.55.3

ris, rinos, shews that the change may take place initially, but scholars whom I have consulted think that there is no instance in which it takes place medially between Greek and Sanskrit, though such changes are not rare between other languages as in Old Irish *ār*, Cymric *ear*, which K Brugmann ‡ derives from* *agra*. Also compare Gk *dakru*, Goth. *tagr*, Old Irish *dēr*, English *tear*; Latin *exagmen*, *examen*, O Ir. *ām*, from the root *aj*. I do not feel myself competent to decide the question, and hence must remain content with simply throwing out the suggestion for what it is worth. I have shewn that traditional coincidences clearly establish the possibility of the Aryan origin of Orion, and if I have not hit upon the correct word that does not affect my argument. My case does not, in fact, rest on phonetic coincidences. I rely principally upon certain statements in the Vedic works, which indicate that the vernal equinox was once in Orion, and I wanted to shew—and I think I have shewn it—that there is sufficient evidence in the Greek and Parsi legends to corroborate the statment in the Vedic works about the Phalguni full-moon being once the first night of the year. We can now give a reasonable explanation of how Fravarshinam came to be the first month in the primitive Parsi calendar and why Dathusho should have been dedicated to Din (creator) †

c10.56

∗ See note on page 119 supra.

c10.57

‡ Comp. Gram., Vol. I, Arts, 518, 523. Prof. Max Müller extends the rule to Greek and Latin, see his Lectures on the Science of Language, Vol. II., p. 309, where several other instances are given. For a full statement of the phonetic difficulties in identifying Gk. Orion with Sk. *Agrayana*, see App. to this essay.

c10.58

† By the bye it may be here remarked that we can perhaps better account for the names Ahuramazda and Ahriman on the theory that the vernal equinox was then in Orion, the winter solstice in Uttara Bhadrapada and the summer solstice in Uttara Phalguni. The presiding deities of the last two Nakshatras are respectively Ahir-Budhnya and Aryaman. According to the Avesta belief, which assigns the south to the Gods and the north to the Daevas, Ahir Budhnya, as the regent of the southermost

c10.59

The mummeries and festivals amongst the Germans can also be more satisfactorily accounted for, while above all, the form the dress and the traditions of Orion may be now better traced and understood. I have already in the previous chapter shown that even the Vedic legends, especially those in the later works, can be simply and naturally explained on the assumption we have made regarding the position of the equinoxes in the days of the Rigveda. The hypothesis on which so many facts, legends, and traditions can be so naturally explained, may, in the absence of a better theory, be fairly accepted, as correct without more proof. But in the present case we can go still further and adduce even direct evidence, or *express* Vedic texts, in its

c10.60

point, would come to be regarded as the supreme ruler of the gods, while Aryaman would be the king of the evil spirits. Therefore we may suppose that the names Ahura Mazda and Ahriman, if not actually derived from these words, were, at least modelled after them. Amongst the names of the Vedic deities Ahir Budhnya is the only word, both the component members of which, are declined as in Ahura Mazda. Spent Mainyus and Anghra-Mainyus is a distinct pair by itself; and besides the difficulty of deriving Ahriman from Anghra Mainyus, there seems to be no reason why Ahriman, if so derived, should be contrasted with Ahura Mazda. (*See* I Hil. Mazd. Relig. by Casartelli, trans. by F. J. Dastur Jamasp Asa, §§ 71, 72, pp. 54-6.) Parsi mythology has another deity named Airyaman, and as this word is derived from Sanskrit Aryaman, it may be objected that same word cannot be said to have also given the name for the evil spirit. I do not think that the objection is well founded. Cf. Andra (Sk. Indra and Verethraghna (Sk. Vritrahan) both of which are the names of the same deity in Sanskrit, but one of which has become an evil spirit in the Avesta. But I cannot fully discuss the subject in a note, and not being pertinent to my case, I cannot also do more than merely record here an explanation that may possibly be suggested.

c10.61

support. In the chapter on the Kṛittikās, I have drawn attention to the remarks of Prof. Max Müller who objected to the conclusion based entirely on the Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa on the ground that no allusion to the position of the Kṛittikās was to be found in the Vedic hymns. We can now account for this silence; for how can the hymns, which appear to be sung when the sun was in Orion at the beginning of the year, contain any allusion to the period when the vernal equinox fell in the Kṛittikās? This could have been easily perceived if, instead of confining to the controversy about the position of the Kṛittikās and endeavouring to find out if some clue to the date of the Veda could be obtained from the determination of the original number and source of the Nakṣatras, scholars had pushed their inquiries further back and examined the Vedic hymns in the same critical spirit. It would not have been difficult in that case to discover the real meaning of the Vedic verse which states that "the dog awakened the Ṛibhus at the end of the year." I have in a previous chapter already referred to the verses in the Ṛigveda regarding the position of Yama's dogs and the death of Namuchi. These passages, as well as the description of Vṛika or the dog-star rising before the sun after crossing the eternal waters, the terminus of the Devayāna (Rig. i. 105. 11.), sufficiently indicate the position of the equinoxes in those days. In the next chapter I propose to discuss and examine two other important passages from the Rigveda, which *directly* bear out the statement in the Taittirīya Saṃhitā with which we have started, *viz.*, that the Phalgunī full-moon commenced the year at the winter solstice in days previous to those of the Taittirīya Saṃhitā and the Brāhmaṇas.

Linked texts (20)