Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c9: Chapter V. The Antelope's Head

The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c9

Language
English

Contents

Chapter V. The Antelope's Head

c9.2

Mrigashiras—Its oldest form and position—Identification of Rohinī and Rudra, etc.—Plutarch on the non-Egyptian origin of Orion, Canis and Ursa—Methods of interpreting mythological legends—Storm and dawn theories—Their insufficiency—Knowledge of the heavens amongst the ancient Aryas—Heaven and Hell, Devayāna and Pitriyāna—Joined by equinoxes, the gates of Heaven—Dogs at these gates—Kerberos and Yama's dogs—The Chinvat bridge and the dogs that guard it—Their identification with Canis Major and Canis Minor, when the vernal equinox was in Orion—Celestial river and Charon's boat—Comparison of the Rigveda and the Avesta dogs—Saramā and Shunāsīrau—Dog (star) commencing the year—Heliacal and acronycal rising of Orion in spring and autumn—Vishnu and Rudra—Kerberos and Orthros—The legend of Namuchi alias Vritra—His decapitation by Indra at the gates of heaven, where Orthros is stationed—Represented by the "antelope's head" in the heavens, Vritra being = Mriga—Compact between Indra and Namuchi—Watery foam—Its identification, with the Milky Way—Legends of Rudra—How he killed Prajāpati Yajna or Sacrifice at the begining of the year—Shulagava sacrifice—Tistrya = *hi stri*, the three star belt of Orion The Hindu Trinity, Dattātreya—His representation in the sky.

c9.3

THE part of the heavens, which contains the Nakshatras, we have now to consider, is the most attractive and interesting in the celestial sphere. Even a casual observer on a clear night is sure to be attracted by its splendid appearance, and the rising of the sun in this portion of the heavens at the beginning the year must have rendered it doubly attractive to the ancient Aryan observers. It contains no less than five stars of the first magnitude including Sirius and a number of the second, with the stream of the Milky Way passing through them. Here there was a fine field for the virgin imagination of the ancient poets and priests and the numerous legends that exist in almost all the sections of the Aryan race about this portion of the heavens fully show that they did not fail to make use of this brilliant opportunity. I intend to examine some of these legends in this chapter with a view to see what corroborative evidence we may get therefrom. If we can more naturally and easily explain the legends that relate to this part of the heavens on the present theory, than has hitherto been done, we may fairly conclude that we have rightly interpreted the passages from the Brâhmaṇas; if not, we shall have either to revise our assumption or to give it up entirely. But before we do so we must, as far as possible, try to identify the asterisms and determine their forms as described in the ancient works.

c9.4.1

We shall first take up Mṛigashiras or Âgrahāyaṇî according to Amarasinha. The very name of the Nakshatra, which means "an antelope's head,"* suggests the figure of the asterism But the constellation consists of so many stars that it is very difficult to say which of them might have suggested the name. I may here remark that the doctrine of "Yogatârâs" or the junction stars cannot be supposed to have been developed in the early days we are here speaking of. I do not mean to say that single stars may not have been or were not specifically named. But wherever a constellation is spoken of, it is more probable that the whole group was intended, as in the case of the Seven Bears or the Kṛittikās; and hence the determination of the junction stars, as given in later astronomical works, cannot help us beyond indicating where we are to look for the constellation described in the old works. For instance, if we take Mṛigashiras we are told that one of the three small stars in the head of Orion is the junction star. This means that we must look for Mṛigashiras in the constellation of Orion. But how can these three stars give us the figure of an antelope's head? The three stars are so close that between themselves they give us no figure at all. It is, however, suggested that the two stars in the shoulders and two in the knees of Orion give us the four feet of the antelope, whose head may then be said to correspond with the three stars in the Orion's head.

c9.4.2

In short it is the antelope's head in the same way as it is the head of Orion. But besides being open to the objection that this gives us the head and not the form of an antelope's head, the explanation presupposes that the whole of the antelope is in the heavens; and if Ārdrā be correctly identified with the star in the right shoulder of Orion we shall have also to include this star in the four feet of the antelope. The old Vedic works, however, seem to lay down that it was the head of the antelope and not the antelope itself, that was transplanted to the heavens. Referring to the legend of Rudra piercing Prajāpati, Sāyaṇa in his commentary on the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (ii. 1. 2. 8) * observes that he, the terrible form created by the gods, "cut off Prajâpati's head by the arrow," and "the arrow and the head both jumped up to the heavens and are there stationed." The Aitareya Brâhmaṇa (iii. 33) gives the same story and there too Pashuman or Bhûtavan is said to have pierced Prajâpati with an arrow. But it does not distinctly say whether it was the head or the body that was pierced by him though in the Shatapatha Brâhmaṇa Mṛigashiras is described as the head of Prajâpati. The tradition of piercing the head does not, however, occur in this form in the Rigveda, though in Rig. x. 61. 5-7 this story of Prajâpati is alluded to. But in many places where Indra is mentioned as killing Vṛitra we are told that he cut off the head of his enemy (i. 52. 10; iv. 18. 9; viii. 6. 7) and in Rig.

c9.4.3

v. 34. 2 and viii. 93. 14, Indra's enemy is described as appearing in the form of an antelope. This shows that the Rigveda indirectly speaks of an antelope's head having been cut off by Indra, and it may justify us in holding that Rudra did the same. The tradition is preserved even in the Greek mythology which tells us that Apollo, indignant at her sister's affections for Orion, made her hit, with an arrow, a mark in the distant sea, which turned out to be the Orion's head.* In the heavens we must therefore look for the "cut off" head of Mṛiga with the arrow pierced in it. There are other circumstances which point to the conclusion. Sanskrit writers have described a small group of stars in Mṛigashiras called Invakâs. Amarasinha tells us that they are "on the top of Mṛigashiras.† Now if Mṛigashiras itself be understood to denote the three small stars in the head of Orion, Invakâs become identical with them and the distinction given in Amara must be put aside as meaningless. I am, therefore, of opinion that the asterism of Mṛigashiras was once really believed to possess the *form* of an antelope's head with an arrow sticking to it. The mention of the arrow in these traditions at once enables us to determine the form, for the arrow can be readily and easily identified with the three stars in the belt of Orion.

c9.4.4

The head with the arrow at the top must therefore be made up by taking along with the belt the two stars in the knees and one in the left shoulder of Orion somewhat as below :—

c9.5

∗ I may here, once for all, remark that though I have translated the word Mṛigashiras by the "antelope's head," I do not mean to imply that Mṛiga necessarily meant "an antelope" in the Vedic literature. It has been suggested that Mṛiga may mean "a bullock" or some other animal like it. It may, but we have nothing to do with it, inasmuch as the word Mṛiga itself is still used in the Sanskrit literature to denote the constellation. My translation of Mṛigashiras must therefore be considered provisional, remembering that though it may change yet the argument in this chapter will still remain unaltered.

c9.6

∗ इषुणा तस्य शिरश्चिच्छेद···इषुः शिरश्चेत्ययमन्तरिक्षमुत्प्लुत्य नक्षत्रारमना-वस्थितं दृश्यते । Sāyaṇa's commentary on Shat. Br. ii. 1. 2, 8.

c9.7

∗ See Smith's Dictionary of Classical Mythology. Ov. Fast, v. 537.

c9.8

† Thus:—मृगशीर्ष मृगशिरस्तस्मिन्नेवाग्रहायणी । इन्वकास्ताच्छिरोदेशे तारका निवसंति याः । Amara i. 3. 23. तच्छिरोदेशे=मृगशीर्षशिरोदेशे according to Bhânu Dikshita.

c9.10

It gives us the arrow pierced into the head and the three stars in the belt are at the top of the antelope's head—a position which Amara assigns to Invakâs. I may further observe that the ancient observers could not and would not have selected the three small stars in the Orion's head to form their asterism when there were so many stars of the first and second magnitude in the same portion of the heavens. Then again whatever the later astronomers may say about the junction stars in Mṛigashiras, the three stars of that asterism popularly pointed out, even at present, are those in the belt and not in the head of Orion. I do not mean to imply that the asterism may not have been conceived and figured otherwise. As a matter of fact we know that it was figured as a hunter or a deer, and there are good grounds to hold that these are ancient ideas.* All that I, therefore, mean is that of the various figures we may make out of the stars in the constellation of Orion, *one* should be of an antelope's head with the arrow sticking to it to represent the cut off head of Mriga, and not as the present configuration supposes both the body and the head of Mriga together and unseparated.

c9.11

I have in what has gone above presumed that the asterism of Mrigashiras must be looked for in the constellation of Orion, and that the legends of Rudra and Prajâpati refer to this constellation. Some scholars, however, doubt the correctness of this assumption; and so far as absolute certainty is concerned their doubts may be justifiable. For, Vedic hymns were not committed to paper till a long time after they were sung, and there is of course no possibility of finding therein a photograph of the portion of the heavens referred to in the various hymns. All that we can, therefore, do is to weigh the probabilities of the proposed identifications; and if this course be adopted I do not think any reasonable doubts could be entertained about the identification of Mrigashiras with the constellation of Orion. To quote the words of Prof.

c9.12

∗ The constellation appears to have been variously conceived :-- (1) the antelope's head; (2) the whole antelope; (3) Prajâpati either in the form of an antelope or as a person with a belt or *Yajnopavîta* (see the next chap.). Of these three forms I consider the "antelope's head" to be the oldest. It will be seen that the three forms are closely connected, and that they are the developments of the same idea.

c9.13

Whitney "there is the whole story illustrated in the sky: the innocent and the lovely Rohinî (Aldebaran); the infamous Prajâpati (Orion) in full career after her, but laid sprawling by the three-jointed arrow (the belt of Orion), which shot from the hand of the near avenger (Sirius) is even now to be seen sticking in his body. With this tale coming down to us from the first period of Nakshatras in India who could have the least doubt of its persistent identity from the earliest times to the latest ?"* I subscribe to every word of what is here so forcibly expressed. Of course, we may expect some variations of details as the story got degenerated into Purânic legends; but it is impossible to mistake the general identity. I shall therefore not unnecessarily dwell upon it here.

c9.14

We have seen how Mrigashiras may have been primitively conceived. After this it is not difficult to identify the other stars. The Rohinî is no other than Aldebaran. Rudra is the presiding deity of Ârdrâ, and we may therefore suppose Rudra to be represented by the star in the right shoulder of Orion (a). But the Aitareya Brâhmana (iii. 33) identifies Rudra with Sirius or what is now called the Mriga-vyâdha. The Milky way does not appear to have received a specific name in these old days, and the three sections of the Aryan race—the Parsis, the Greeks, and the Indians—have no common word to denote the same. Yet it is impossible to suppose that this broad stream of stars could have been unnoticed, and I shall show further on that it was not. Greeek astronomy places two dogs in this part of the heavens—Canis Major and Canis Minor—one on each side of the Milky Way, and it has been doubted whether the claims of these dogs to primitive antiquity are well founded. In what follows, I hope to show that they are. In the meanwhile, I may here refer to the testimony of Plutarch to prove that some, at least, of the actually existing figures of constellations in the heavens are Greek transformations of others which had been placed there before by the Egyptians; for this writer, who in his treatise *De Iside et Osiride* makes the priests of Egypt say that the souls of gods shine in the heavens and are stars, adds that "the constellation of Isis is called, by the Greeks, Canis; that of Horns, Orion, and that of Typhon, Ursa."* This statement is very important, inasmuch as it shows that the names of at least three constellations, Orion, Canis and Ursa, are not of Egyptian or Chaldean origin. Of these Ursa Major (Greek *Arktos*) has been already identified with *sapta ṛikṣhas* or simply the *ṛikṣhas* of the Vedas and the *Haptôiringa* of the Parsis, thus partly confirming the above-mentioned statement of Plutarch; and it can be shewn, that his observation is equally good in respect of the other two constellations, or that Canis, Orion and Ursa are all of Aryan origin. At present I use Plutarch's statement only so far as to justify us in presuming the three constellations to be of Aryan origin, or, to put it negatively, not borrowed by the Greeks from the Egyptians.†

c9.15

∗ See Prof. Whitney's Essays on Hindu and Chinese systems of asterisms, p. 53.

c9.16

∗ *De Iside et Osiride*. I take the quotation from Narrien's Origin and Progress of Astronomy, p. 44. Narrien further observes that this assertion of Plutarch seems to be confirmed by the discovery of a sculptured planisphere on the ceiling of the Temple of Denderah where "in the place of Canis Major is traced a cow, the animal consecrated to Isis" and "instead of Orion is the figure of man which is supposed to be intended for the son of Osiris."

c9.17

† I have deemed it necessary to make these remarks because Mr. Gladstone in his Time and Place of Homer, p. 214, observes that Orion is either "non Hellenic or pre-Hellenic." Plutarch's

c9.18

Having thus shown that we are at liberty to assume that the Greek legends about Orion and Canis are not of foreign origin, let us see what coincidences we can discover between the legends of the three sections of the Aryan race about this part of the heavens. I am not going to trace every legend to its primitive source and explain it on the dawn or the storm theory. Nor do I believe that it is possible to do so; for there are many other objects in nature besides the dawn and the storm, that are likely to impress the mind of a primitive man;* and a legend, though it might have originated with the sun or the dawn, is sure to grow and develop under the influence of these objects. For instance, we can understand the story of Vṛitra by supposing that he represented the power that locked up the waters in the clouds, but when we are told that this Vṛitra sometimes assumed the form of a Mṛiga, here is a distinct addition which cannot be satisfactorily accounted for on the original theory. Those that have watched and examined how legends grow can easily understand what I mean. The idea that everything must be reduced to "dawn and nothing but the dawn" is the result of supposing that in the days of the Rigveda men were not acquainted with anything else. The supposition is partly true, but as I shall presently show there are many passages in the Rigveda which presuppose the knowledge of stars and constellations. Thus testimony shews that the constellation is not of Chaldean or Egyptian origin. The conception must therefore be pre Hellenic, or, in others words, Indo Germanic, and I think I have given ample evidence in this chapter and the next to prove that the idea of Orion was fully developed before the Greeks, the Parsis and the Hindus separated.

c9.19

∗ See Herbert Spencer's Sociology, Vol. 1., Chap. xxiv.

c9.20

at the time we are speaking of several ideas had already been formed and recognised and even familiarly known. For example, the idea of *Devayâna* and *Pitriyâna* appears to have been well settled at this time, so much so that though the year was afterwards made to commence with the winter solstice, the equinoctial division of the heavens, with all the notions which had already become associated with it, continued to exist, though somewhat restricted in its scope, side by side with the new system. Whether this idea itself is or is not further resolvable into simpler ideas is a different question altogether. Perhaps it may be shown to have grown out of the idea of day and night or light and darkness. There are several passages in the Rigveda (i. 123. 7; 164. 47.) which speak of a black and a white day, and it is very likely that these were the original names of *Devayâna* and *Pitriyâna*; for when new ideas are introduced it is usual to express them in old words with such qualifying adjectives as would distinguish the new idea from the old one. A "black day" might thus mean the Dakshinâyana or the Pitriyâna, as night appeared to increase at the expense of day during the period. When the southern course of the sun thus came to be likened to a dark day or night (Rig. vi. 9. 1) it was naturally regarded as a night of the Devas to distinguish it from the ordinary night; and as no sacrifices were performed during the ordinary night, so no offerings could be made to the Devas during their night (vi. 58. 1). Of course, it must have been a long time before men could develop conceptions like these. There was, indeed, a time when they could hardly account for the fact how the sun found his way from the west back to the east. In the Rigveda x. 72. 7, the sun is said to rise from out of the ocean and a similar idea is found in Homer who describes not only the sun, but even the stars, as "bathed in the waters of the ocean." * In the Rigveda x. 108. 1, Saramâ is said to have crossed really a "long way." The Aitareya Brâhmana iii. 44, which states that the sun never sets in reality, makes a distinct advance upon these notions. But it is difficult to say whether astronomical ideas were developed to such an extent in the days when the year first commenced from the winter solstice. I do not, however, wish to enter here into these details. As previously observed I assume that, at the time we are speaking, the Vedic Aryas had already passed through these stages, and that the ideas of *Devayâna* and *Pitriyâna* were familiarly known and established; and assuming these as established, I intend to examine how legends were built upon them. I have, however, briefly alluded to the probable origin of these ideas inasmuch as it helps us to better appreciate the description of the Devayâna and the Pitriyâna. Ordinarily the Pitriyâna is described (Rig. ix. 113. 8) as the region "where Vaivasvata is the king, which is the undermost (lit. obstructed †) part of the heavens, and where there are eternal waters." The Vaivasvata Yama here spoken of does not, however, appear to have as yet been invested with the terrible character we find given to him in the later literature. Corresponding to Yama in the south we have Indra in the north, each supreme in his own sphere, and dividing the whole world into two parts, one bright and known, and the other watery and mysterious, or, in the language of seasons, first comprising Vasanta, Grīshma and Varshā and the second Sharada, Hemanta and Shishira.

c9.21

∗ Lewis, Hist. Survey of the Astr. of the Ancients, p.

c9.22

⁶ Iliad, v. 6, vii. 422.

c9.23

† यत्रावरोधनं दिवः in the original. I think अवरोधन means "when the view of the heavens is obstructed;" "the portion of the heavens which is turned away," Cf. Ait. Br. iv. 14, where अवरोधन of the year is spoken of.

c9.24

Now when the vernal equinox was in Orion or Mriga-shiras it was the beginning of the Devayāna, and as the constellation is remarkable for its brilliancy and attractiveness the ancient Aryans may have been naturally influenced not merely to connect their old traditions with it, but also to develope them on the same lines. Thus the Devayāna and the Pitriyāna, as representing the two hemispheres must be joined, and the vernal and the autumnal equinoxes became the natural points of union between the regions of gods and Yama. The equinoxes were, in fact, the gates of heaven, and as such it was natural to suppose that they were watched by dogs. In the Rigveda i. 48. 15 the dawn is spoken of as illuminating the "gates of heaven," and in i. 13. 6 and ii. 3. 5 the gates-deties are invoked to keep the gates open. We have a similar invocation in the Vājasaneyi Sanhitā 21. 49. This shows that the idea of the "gates of heaven" was not unknown in Vedic times and the arrangement of the gates on the sacrificial ground, which is prepared on the model of the annual passage of the sun, shows that these gates divided the whole hemisphere into two parts. Macrobius records a tradition that "the ancients designated the signs of Cancer and Capricorn as the gates of the sun, at which having arrived, the luminary seemed to retrace his path in the zone which he never leaves."* Now Macrobius could not but speak in the language of the twelve zodiacal portions, and if we therefore divest his statement of the form in which it is naturally expressed it means that the equinoxes, which the ancients supposed to be once in the zodiacal signs named above, were then called gates of heaven.

c9.25

∗ Macrob. Comment. in Somn. Scrip. Lib. I. cap 15. I take the quotation from Narrien's Origin and Progress of Astronomy, p. 51.

c9.26

The Iranians, however, have preserved the legend more fully. With them the equinox is not merely a gate, but a bridge connecting heaven and hell—the Devaloka and the Yamaloka, or the Devayâna and the Pitriyâna—and “dogs that keep the Chinvat Bridge” help the departing soul to cross it. Darmesteter, in his introduction to the Vendidad, published in the Sacred Books of the East Series, observes* that “this reminds one at once of the three-headed Kerberos, watching at the doors of hell and still more of the four-eyed dogs of Yama, who guard the ways to the realm of death” (Rig. x. 14.10). The ideas are, indeed, strikingly similar and point out to a common source. Kerberos has even been identified with Sanskrit *Shabala* or *Sharvara*, meaning variegated or a dog of Yama. But, as far as I know, no satisfactory explanation has yet been given of these legends nor any attempt made to explain them on a rational basis.† If we, however, suppose that the vernal equinox was once in Orion, the constellations of Canis Major and Canis Minor—the two dogs—would then be on the boundary line of heaven and Yama’s region, and the whole of the above story may be seen illustrated in the sky like that of Prajâpati and Rudra previously referred to.‡ According to Bundahis xii. 7, the Chinvat Bridge extends from the height of Chakâd-i-Dâitak in the middle of the world to the summit of Arezur at the gate of hell; while Dr. Geiger observes that "it was believed to have been built over a wide expanse of water which separates the paradise from this world."* In the later Indian literature we are told that the souls of the deceased have to cross a stream† before they reach the region of Yama, while the story of Charon shews that even the Greeks entertained a similar belief. What could this river be? With the vernal equinox in Orion, one can easily identify it with the Milky Way, which could then have been appropriately described as separating the regions of gods and Yama, the Devayâna and the Pitṛiyâna, or the Northern and the Southern hemisphere. In the later Hindu works it is actually called the Celestial River (*svarṇadī*), while the Greeks have placed

c9.27

∗ Sacred books of the East, Vol. IV., Zend-Avesta, Part 1., introduction v., 4.

c9.28

† See Kaegi's Rigveda, by Arrowsmith, p. 160, note 274a, where the writer quotes Aufrecht to the same effect.

c9.29

‡ Weber and Zimmer appear to have suggested that the conception of Yama's dogs might have been formed from some constellations. Bloomfield rejects this suggestion and tries to show

c9.30

† Called Vaitaraṇī. The Garuḍa Purâṇa, Pretak. vi. 25-31, states that a cow should be given to a Brâhman to enable the deceased to pay the ferrymen on this river.

c9.31

that the dogs represent the sun and the moon. His explanation does not, however, show how and why the dogs came to be located at the gates of heaven and why they should be entrusted amongst all the sections of the Aryan race with the duty of watching the souls of the dead. Bloomfield quotes Kath. S. xxxvii. 14 (where day and night are called the dogs of Yama) and Shat. Br. xi. 1. 5. 1. (where the moon is said to be a divine dog) to prove that the dogs must be understood to mean the sun and the moon. But I think that the Brâhmaṇa here gives simply a conjectural explanation, and, as in the case of Namuchi's legend, we cannot accept it, inasmuch as it does not give any reason why the dogs were stationed at the doors of Yama's region. There are many other incidents in the story which are not explained on Bloomfield's theory. I see, therefore, no reason for modifying my views which were put down in writing before I could get Bloomfield's paper in the last number of the Journal of the American Oriental Society.

c9.32

∗ Dr. Geiger's Civil, of East Iran., Vol. I., p. 100.

c9.33

near it the constellation of Argos (ship) and two dogs—Canis Major and Canis Minor—one on each side to guard both the entrances of the Chinvat Bridge across it. The Rigveda also mentions two dogs of Yama kept to “watch the way.” while the Greeks place a three-headed dog at the gates of hell. In Rig. x. 63. 10 we are further told that the land of the blessed is to be reached by “the celestial ship with a good rudder.”* The words in the original are *daivîm nâvam*. Comparing these with the expression *divyasya shunah* in the Atharva Veda vi. 80. 3, and seeing that a celestial (*divya*) representation of Rudra is described in later works† it seems to me that we must interpret the epithet to mean “celestial” and not simply “divine.” Thus the Vedic works appear to place a celestial *dog* and a celestial *ship* at the entrance of the other world, and these can be easily identified with the Greek constellations of Argo Navis and Canis, if we suppose the Milky Way to be the boundary of Heaven in these days. I do not mean to say that these conceptions had their origin in the appearance of the heavens. On the contrary, a comparison with the non-Aryan legends shows it to be more likely that the heavenly bodies received their names from the pre-existing beliefs, about the other world, amongst the people. Herbert Spencer tells us that amongst the non-Aryan savage races the journey to the next world is believed to lie over land, down a river or across the sea, and that in consequence the practice of burying their dead in boats prevails amongst some of them.‡ The North Americans, we are further told, say that the Milky Way is "the 'Path of Spirits,' 'the Road of the Souls,' where they travel to the land beyond the grave, and where their camp fires may be seen blazing as brighter stars."* This coincidence between the Aryan and the non-Aryan legends makes it highly probable that the figures of the constellations were conceived by the Aryans according to notions of the next world prevailing amongst them at that time. It may be noticed, however, that the non-Aryan races do not connect the idea of time, *e. g.*, of the year and the seasons, with these beliefs, while it is the *chief* characteristic of the Aryan legends. We are, for instance, told that the dog commenced the year (Rig. i. 161. 13) and that the Devayâna comprised the three seasons of Vasantâ, Grîshma and Varshâ (Shat. Br. ii. 1. 3. 1).† It is this feature of the Aryan legends that is most important for the purpose of our enquiry, while the coincidence, above pointed out, confirms, in a remarkable way, the genesis of the Aryan legends here proposed. The chief elements in the traditions of the three Aryan nations may thus be satisfactorily explained.

c9.34

∗ See Kaegi's Rigveda, translated by Arrowsmith, p. 159, note 273.

c9.35

† See the passage from the Mahimna Stotra quoted *infra*.

c9.36

‡ See Herbert Spencer's Principles of Sociology Vol. 1., chap. xv., 1st Ed.

c9.37

† For German legends, indicating time, see the next chapter.

c9.38.1

It may, however, be contended that the two dogs of Yama spoken of in the Rigveda may not be the same as the Avesta dogs at the Bridge. A closer examination of the several passages in the Rigveda will, however, dispel such doubts. In the Vendidad xiii. 9, the dogs are called *peshupâna*, or those that guard the way to the region of death. The Avesta dog is *chathru-chashmen* (Ved. viii. 16), while the Vedic dogs are described as *chatur-akshan* (Rig. x. 14. 11), both of which expressions mean "four-eyed." The dogs in the Avesta and the Rigveda, however, differ in colour. In Ved. viii. 16 the dogs are said to *zairitem* or *spaetem zairi-gaoshem*, yellow or white with yellow ears ; while the dogs of Yama are said to be *shabala*, spotted or variegated. But the difference is neither very material, nor such as cannot be accounted for. In the Rigveda we can trace the yellow colour of the Avesta dogs. The antelope of the sun in Rig. x. 86. 3 is said to be *harita* or yellow, the *zairetem* of the Avesta, and if we suppose this antelope to be no other than that represented by Orion, as the sun commenced the year at that point, we need not be surprised if the dogs in the Avesta are described as yellow, especially when in the Atharva Veda viii. 1. 9. we find the two messenger dogs of Yama named as *Shyâma* and *Shabala*, thus noting probably a difference in colour. The Atharva Veda iv. 20. 7 mentions a four-eyed *hitch*, while the Shatapatha Brâhmaṇa xiii. 1. 2. 9.

c9.38.2

the adjective is applied to a dog; and the same animal is evidently intended in both places. In the Parsi scriptures the dogs at the Chinvat Bridge are sometimes spoken of in singular (Ved. viii. 16) and sometimes, as in Rig. x. 14. 11, in dual (Ved. xiii. 9). This shows that we might disregard gender and number in the description of these dogs ; and we are thus led to suppose that Saramâ in the Rigveda is again to be identified with the dogs that watch the gates of heaven. Whether Saramâ* in primitive days was or was not connected with the dawn, I do not undertake to say. But there is an incident in her story which confirms the identification I have proposed. The Paṇis tried to coax Saramâ by offering her milk which she drank. On her return she denied having seen the cows of Indra, who thereupon kicked her and she vomited the milk. Now the mention of milk at once suggests the idea that it must be the milk in the galaxy on each side of which the two dogs are stationed. In Rig. iv. 57. 5 Shunâsîrau are invoked in order that they may pour down upon the earth the “milk,” which they “make in heaven.” Prof. Max Müller records a suggestion that Shunâsirau, here spoken of, may be a very old name for the Dog-star, and with its derivative Sairya would give us the etymon of Seirios!* In Rig. vii. 55.

c9.38.3

2 the Vâstoṣhpati, “the guardian of the house,” in the form of a dog, is invoked and described as bright and red Sîrameya on whose jaws spears seem to glitter: a description which answers so well with the appearance of Sirius, that with what has been said above we may at once identify the Sârameya with the Dog-star. I may here refer to the Shatapatha Brâhmaṇa ii. 1. 2. 9, where speaking of Mṛigashiras, the Prajâpati's body pierced by Rudra is described at his vâstu. May not Vâstoṣhpati be regarded as guardian of this? If so, it may be a further proof that Vâstoṣhpati represents the star Sirius, which, as it were, guards the head of Prajâpati in the form of Orion or the antelope's head. But, apart from this suggestion, I would finally quote Rig. i. 161. 13, where it is expressly stated that “the dog awakened” the Ribhus, the genii of the seasons, at the “end of the year!” Sâyaṇa proposes to interpret shvânam in the original by “wind,” but it is evidently an error. In the Shatapatha Brâhmaṇa xiii. 5. 1. 8, vṛika and shvâ are mentioned together, and the former is known to be a name for a wild dog. If so, Sâyaṇa's explanation of Rig. i. 105. 11 appears to be more probable than that of Yâska. It is in fact a description of the dog (star) appearing in the east after crossing "the eternal waters" of Yamaloka, and then being immediately lost in the rays of the sun, which rising after it, had to push the wild dog out of his way.

c9.38.4

The mention of the "eternal waters" of the Yamaloka indicates that the heliacal rising of the Dog-star, here referred to, occurred at the end of the Pitriyâna or at the vernal equinox, thus further confirming the statement that the dog commenced the year. There are other passages of similar import, but as I wish to avoid, for the present, any disputed passages, I do not mention them here. If the time, I am contending to establish for the hymns of the Rigveda, comes to be accepted, it is sure to furnish an unerring clue to the interpretation of many other passages and legends in that sacred book, but the work must be left to be done hereafter.

c9.39

∗ Principles of Sociology, Vol. I., chap. xxiv.. p. 399, 1st Ed.

c9.40

∗ See Max Müller's Lectures on the Science of Language, Vol. II., p. 511.

c9.41

∗ Max Müller's Lectures on the Science of Language, Vol. II., p. 526.

c9.42

Putting all these passages together, we find that in the Rigveda, dogs are described as dark and brown, bright and red, possessing four eyes, guarding the house and the way to Yama's region, vomiting and making milk, and above all beginning the new year.* All these facts clearly show that the Vedic dogs are the same as the Hellenic or the Iranian, and we can easily and satisfactorily account for all these legends by supposing that the vernal equinox was near the Dog-star in those days, thus making the dog rise with the sun in the beginning of the year at the gates of the Devayâna. We can now also understand how the dogs could have been described as four-eyed. For, if they are correctly identified with Canis near the Milky Way, then the four stars in the body of Canis might naturally be said to be his eyes;* for once the number of eyes is increased from two to four, we need not expect to find them all on the head, but, like the thousand eyes of Indra in the later mythology, they may be regarded as spread over the whole body. M. Darmesteter rightly observes† that "the Parsis being at a loss to find four-eyed dogs interpreted the name as meaning a dog with two spots above the eyes; but it is clear that the two-spotted dog's services‡ are only accepted for want of a four-eyed one, or of a white one with yellow ears." Evidently the Parsi priests failed to realise that it was the divine or heavenly, and not an earthly dog that was here described, as driving the death-fiend. The Atharva Veda vi. 80. 3 shows that the Indian priests of the time well understood it to mean a dog who is "born of waters, whose house is in the sky, and who sheds his lustre all around."

c9.43

∗ Prof. Bloomfield's theory leaves many of these facts unexplained. If the dogs represent the sun and the moon, how can the sun tell the Ribhus that the dog awakened them at the end of the year? I cannot also understand how the sun and the moon can be described as variegated in colour, or as engaged in making milk. Again how can the sun or the moon be said to be four-eyed, and why should they perpetually remain at the boundary of heaven and hell? In Rig. x. 86, 4, a dog is said to be let loose at the ear of the Mriga, and this as well as the dog in Rig. i. 161, 13, must be supposed to be different from Yama's dogs, if we accept Bloomfield's view.

c9.44

∗ In Rig. x. 127. 1, the stars are said to be the eyes of night. The Greeks entertained a similar idea. Their Argos was surnamed Panoptes, "the all seeing," having a hundred eyes on the body. See Max Muller's Science of language, Vol. II., p. 416.

c9.45

† Sacred Books of the East Series, Vol. IV.; Zend Avesta, Part 1., Intr. v. 4.

c9.46

‡ These services are required at the funeral ceremony. It may be here noted that the hymn in the Rigveda which describes Yama's dogs (Rig. x. 14) is still recited at the time of burning the dead body of a Hindu. Every Brâhman has also to give, every day, two small offerings of cooked rice to the two dogs of Yama, Shyama and Shabala, at the time of the Vaishvadeva sacrifice. The offerings are placed on the ground in the form of a circle, beginning with the eastern point. The offering to Shyama is placed outside the circle at the south west and that to Shabala at the north-west point. In other words, Shyama and Shabala are placed on each side of the western point, in the same way as the dogs appear in the heavens on each side of the Milky way.

c9.47

There is another set of traditions which we can similarly explain on the supposition with which we have started, viz., that the vernal equinox was then in Orion. The heliacal rising of the constellation at the beginning of the year marked the revival of nature at the commencement of spring, and the asterism may thus be said to represent all these milder influences which in later mythology were fully embodied in the conception of Vishnu. But the case was completely reversed if we take the acronycal rising of the same. It was at the autumnal equinox that the Dog-star rose at the beginning of night, and though, strictly speaking, it marked the end of Varshā, yet the portion of the heaven wherein the constellation is situated could have been easily regarded as the battle-ground of Indra and Vritra who fought in those days, and also as the stage on which the terrible Rudra made his appearance. In short, the constellation naturally became the harbinger of the mild and the terrible aspects of nature. It is in this latter sense that the Dog-star might be considered a rain-star, and Saramā, like the Greek Hermes with which it is identified, might be said to have been sent to search for the cows of Indra taken away by the Panis of the nether word. The Greek legends mention two watch dogs—Kerberos and Orthros; and of these Kerberos has been etymologically identified with *Sharvara* and Orthros with *Vritra*.∗ But no explanation has been given of how this Vritra came to be stationed at the gates of hell. Prof. Max Müller suggests that Orthros is the dark spirit that is to be fought by the sun in the morning. But then, this does not explain why it was called Vritra, and how it came to be killed by Herakles. The legend of Namuchi, as given in the Rigveda and interpreted on the supposition that the year began with the Dog-star, does, however, solve the difficulty. I have already alluded to the fact that in the Rigveda Vritra is often said to appear in the form of a *Mriga* (Rig. i 80. 7; v. 32. 3; v. 34. 2; viii. 93. 14). In Rig. vii. 19. 5 Vritra and Namuchi are both said to be killed by Indra, and though this cannot be taken as a direct authority for holding that Vritra and Namuchi are the different forms of the same enemy, yet from the description of the two I do not think there can be any doubt as to their being identical. In fact, Shushna, Pipru, Kuyava and Namuchi[†] are only so many different names of the enemy of Indra. Now Indra is represented as cutting off the head of Vritra (Rig. i. 52. 10), and also of Namuchi (Rig. v. 30. 7; vi. 20. 6). Combining these statements we get that Indra cut off the head of Vritra or Namuchi, in the form of a *Mriga*; and this at once suggests the question whether that head is not the same as that of Prajapati cut off by Rudra and which gave the name of Mriga-shirsha, or "the antelope's head" to the constellation. In Rig i 53. 7, we are simply

c9.48

∗ Max Müller, *Gifford Lectures*, 1891, p. 248. *Biographies of Words*, p. 197.

c9.49

[†]: See Prof. Bloomfield's contributions to the interpretation of the Veda in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. XV., p. 146.

c9.50

told that Namuchi was killed by Indra in the distant (parâvati) region, which seems to mean the region of Yama. But as it does not satisfactorily determine the place where Namuchi was killed, I refer to Rig x. 73. 7, where Indra by killing Namuchi is said to have cleared up 'the paths leading (yâna in the original) to the (region of) Devas ;"* which plainly shows that Namuchi was killed at the gates of the Devayâna. In the Vâjasneyi Sanhitâ 10. 14 a sacrificial rite is described which gives the same place and time of Namuchi's death. The priest there throws away a piece of metal hidden under a tiger hide, exclaiming, "the head of Namuchi is thrown away," after he has taken his *Yajanâna* through all directions (East, South, West, North and upwards) and also through all the seasons (Vasanta, Grishma, Sharad, Varshâ and Hemanta-and-Shishira). This means, if it can mean anything, that Namuchi *alias* Vritra was killed, in the language of seasons, after Shishira, or in other words, at the gate of the Devayâna as described in the above quoted passage from the Rigveda, for the end of Shishira is the end of the Pitriyâna. Here then we have an explanation of how Orthros came to be at the gate of hell, or in a distant region under the setting sun. But the association of Orthros with Kerberos throws further light on the subject. If Vritra's head is the same as Mriga-shîrsha, as explained in the beginning of this chapter, then the three stars in the belt of Orion, which form the top of Mrigashiras, might have easily suggested the idea of a three-headed monster. In Rig. x. 99. 6

c9.51

∗ The original verse is as follows:— त्वं जघन्थ नमुरिं मखस्युं दासं कृण्वान ऋषये विमायम् । त्वं चक्रर्थ मखवे स्योनान्पथो देवयानांसेव यानान् ॥

c9.52

Indra is said to have killed a three-headed and six-eyed monster. It might be contended that the explanation is not satisfactory, inasmuch as the head of Mriga is here supposed to be again conceived as a dog, while there is no authority in the Vedic works expressly describing Mriga as a dog. But if Orthros has become a dog in the Greek mythology, while it is a Mriga in the Vedas, I see no reason why Kerberos should not get his three heads from the Trishîrshan of the Vedas. The difficulty is not at all a serious one. In bringing together the traditions of the three Aryan races after thousands of years, we must make some allowances, and be satisfied with a general similarity of the stories. The asterism of Mrigashiras and the dogs are so close, that one might be easily mistaken for the other, when all the knowledge of the original traditions was lost. It is thus that we can account for the fact that out of the three beings that were represented in this portion of the heavens, Rudra (the hunter) Mriga (the antelope), and Shvâ (the dog), the Greeks retained in the sky only the hunter (Orion), and the dog (Kuon*, Canis), with nothing to hunt, while the Hindus have not only forgotten, but condemned, the dog.

c9.53

The Parsis, it is true, have not mistaken the dog, but still as regards complexion, they have represented their dogs as possessing the colour which in the Rigveda is given to the antelope of the sun. Another objection that may be urged against this identification is that we are required to suppose Mṛigashiras to be once the head of Prajâpati, and at another time that of Vṛitra. It must, however, be remembered that we do so on the express authority of the Rigveda, and that besides it is quite natural to suppose that once the antelope's head was said to exist in the heavens, Vedic poets vied with each other in weaving legends out of it. As an illustration I refer to Rig. x. 86. 5, where the poet describes Vṛishâkapi's head as cut off, but so on after Vṛishakapi is told that it was an illusion, and that in reality it was some one else whose head was so severed (verse 18). This clearly shows that it was a period when legends were still being formed out of the "antelope's head."

c9.54

∗ The principal star in Canis Minor is still called Procyon = Gk. Prokuon, Sk. Prashvan, the Foredog. It shews that the previous star was once called Kuon by the Greeks. If we count the Nakshatras in the direction of the sun's annual course, Kuon comes first, and Prokuon afterwards. Cf. Sanskrit Râlhâ and Anurâdhâ, of which, like Procyon, later writers have only retained Anurâdhâ. Phalgunî, Ashâdhâ, and Bhâdrapadâ are similarly divided into Pûrvâ and Uttarâ, the preceding and the foregoing.

c9.55

We can now explain how later writers evolved a myth out of Namuchi's death. The story is given in the Tâṇḍya Brâhmaṇa (xii. 6. 8).* There we are told that Indra and Namuchi came to a settlement that the former should kill the latter, neither during day nor by night, nor by any weapon, whether dry or wet. Indra therefore killed him with the foam of the waters at the junction of day and night, when it had dawned, but yet the sun had not risen. It is probably this circumstance that has led Professor Max Müller to suppose that Orthros represents the gloom of the morning. But the explanation does not account for the other incidents in the story. Was Namuchi or Vṛitra killed every morning by Indra? Or was it only at the beginning of the rainy season? Evidently the latter. We must then suppose that Namuchi was killed after dawn, but before the actual daybreak, at or during the monsoons. In other words, the junction of day and night in the later myths must be understood to mean a particular junction of day and night in the rains, or more definitely, the junction of the day and the night of the Gods—the junction of the Pitṛiyâna and the Devayâna, the gates of which are said to be cleared up by Namuchi's death in the passage from the Rigveda given above. The latter part of the legend is, however, still more poetical, and Prof. Max Müller's theory leaves it entirely unexplained. Indra is here said to have killed Namuchi with a weapon which was neither dry nor moist—the watery froth. This is evidently based upon Rig. viii. 14. 13, where Indra is described as "cutting the head of Namuchi with the foam of waters," and the same incident is again referred to in Rig. x. 61. 8. Therefore, even if we reject later speculations with respect to "why foam or froth should have been used," and decline to solve the question by assuming a compact* between Indra and Namuchi, yet we have to account for the fact that in the Rigveda itself Indra is said to have used the foamy weapon to destroy his enemy. What could this foamy weapon be? If Namuchi was killed at the gates of the Devayāna and his head still lies there, the watery foam could be no other than the broad belt of the Milky Way which crossed the heavens at the same part. The blue vault of the heavens is often compared to an ocean in the later Sanskrit literature,* and the stars are said to be the patches of foam upon its surface. Thus in the Mahimna Stotra, which is considered to be at least seven or eight hundred years old, the author describes (verse 17) the heavenly form of Rudra (i. e., Rudra as represented in the sky), and tells us that the stream of waters on his head has "the beauty of its foamy appearance enhanced by a number of stars.'† This is a description of the Ganges on the head of the celestial form of Shiva, and the author of Mahimna, who, in verse 22, refers to the story of Rudra piercing Prajāpati with an arrow, and says that the whole story is still illustrated in the sky,‡ evidently meant to

c9.56

∗ See also Taitt Br. i. 7. 1. 7; Shat. Br. xii. 7. 3. 3. Also the Purâṇas, Ramâyaṇa iii. 30. 28; Mahâbhârata Udyoga p. ix. 29. Prof. Bloomfield has collected all such passages in his article on the contributions to the Interpretation of the Veda in the Journal of American Oriental Society, Vol. XV., pp 148 158.—The legend of Hiraṇya-Kashipu in the Purâṇas appears to have been based on Namuchi's story.

c9.57

∗ Prof. Bloomfield has discussed this legend in a recent number of the Journal of the American Oriental Society (Vol. XV., Number II.), but he gives no explanation of the compact between Indra and Namuchi, In my opinion it is impossible to hold that the compact could have been the original basis of the legend. It is evidently a later invention to explain what were then deemed otherwise inexplicable incidents in the legend; and until these incidents are explained in a natural way, the legend cannot be said to be properly understood.

c9.58

*Cf. Sāhitya Darpaṇa 10, where under अपहुति we have— नेदं नभोमडलमंबुराशिनैताश्च तारा नवफेनभंगाः । वियद्व्यापी तारागणगुणितफेनोद्मरुचिः प्रवाहो बारां यः पृषतलघु दृष्टः शिरसि ते । जगद्द्वीपाकारं जलधिचलयं तेन कृत- मित्यनेनैवोन्नेयं धृतमहिम दिव्यं तव वपुः ॥

c9.59

The conception of Shiva embodied in this verse is really a grand one. The poet asks his readers to imagine how great must Shiva be, the celestial stream on whose head encircles the Universe! The Milky Way which girdles the celestial sphere cannot be better described.

c9.60

प्रजानाथं नाथ प्रसभमभिकं स्वां दुहितरं गतं रोहिद्भूतां रिरमयिषुमृष्यस्य वपुषा । धनुष्पाणेर्यातं दिवमपि सपत्राकृतममुं त्रसन्तं तेऽद्यापि त्यजति न मृगव्याधरभसः ॥

c9.61

Also Cf. Shākuntalā, i., मृगानुसारिणं साक्षात्पश्यामीव पिनाकिनम् । describe by it the Milky Way which passes over the head of the star of Rudra. Now if the poetic imagination of the author of Mahimna can perceive foam in the Milky Way, I see no reason why the virgin imagination of the Vedic poets should not rise to that pitch. Dr. Haug, speaking of the Vanant Yastha, observes that the constellation (Vanant), by which the Parsi Dasturs understand the Milky Way is said to stand directly over Hell, and further, "the Dasturs are of opinion that this constellation is the weapon (Vazra) which is constantly aimed by Mithra at the head of the Daevas, as stated in the Khurshed Yasht."* Referring to the Khurshed Yashta we simply find that the club (Vazra) of Mithra "was well struck down upon the skulls of the Daevas."† The information given to Dr. Haug may therefore be traditional among the Parsi Priests; but whether traditional or otherwise as it comes from an independent source, it is strong corroborative evidence to support the identification of Indra's foamy weapon, with the stream of the Milky Way in the heavens. With the vernal equinox near the Dog-star, the Milky Way, which then separated the region of gods from that of Yama, could well be said to be over Hell and "well struck upon the heads of the Daevas." Namuchi's legend can thus be simply and naturally accounted for, if we assign to the equinoxes the position which we have deduced from other passages in the Vedic works. I may point out that we do not hereby account for the original idea of Vritra. That is evidently a still older legend. But his existence at the gate of Hell and his decapitation by the foamy weapon—the two chief elements in the later Vedic traditions are satisfactorily explained by placing, as originally proposed, the vernal equinox in the constellation of Orion, and identifying Namuchi *alias* Vṛitra with the constellation of Mṛigashiras or the antelope's head, situated just below the Milky Way.

First 65 of 78 passages. Read on

Linked texts (13)