The Arctic Home in the Vedas c11.45

c11.45

Now an important question in connection with these *Sattras* is why they alone should be designated ‘night-sacrifices’ (*rātri-kratus*), or ‘night-sessions’ (*rātri-sattras*)? and why their number should be one hundred? or, in other words, why there are no *night-sattras* of longer duration than one hundred nights? The *Mīmāṃsakas* answer the first part of the question by asking us to believe that the word ‘night’ (*rātriḥ*) is really used to denote ‘a day’ in the denomination of these sacrifices (Shabara on Jaimini VIII, 1, 17). The word *Dvi-rātra*, according to this theory, means ‘two days’ sacrifice, and *Shata-rātra*, a hundred days’ sacrifice. This explanation appears very good at the first sight, and as a matter of fact it has been accepted by all writers on the sacrificial ceremonies. In support of it, we may also cite the fact that as the moon was the measurer of time in ancient days, the night was then naturally more marked than the day, and instead of saying ‘ so many days’ men often spoke of ‘ so many nights,’ much in the same way as we now use the word ‘fort-night.’ This is no doubt good so far as it goes; but the question is why should there be no Soma sacrifices of a longer duration than one hundred nights? and why a gap, a serious gap, is left in the series of Soma sacrifices after one hundred nights' Sattra until we come to the annual Sattra of 360 days? Admitting that 'night' means 'day,' we have Soma sacrifices lasting from 1 to 100 days; and, if so, where was the harm to complete the series until the yearly Sattra of 360 days was reached? So far as I know, no writer on sacrificial ceremonies has attempted to answer this question satisfactorily. Of course, adopting the speculative manner of the Brâhmaṇas, we might say that there are no Soma sacrifices of longer than one hundred nights' duration, because the life of a man cannot extend beyond a hundred years, (Tait. Br. III, 8, 16, 2). But such an explanation can never be regarded as satisfactory, and the Mîmâṃsakas, who got over one difficulty by interpreting 'night' into 'day,' have practically left this latter question untouched, and, therefore, unsolved. In short, the case stands thus:--the sacrificial literature mentions a series of 99, or practically one hundred Soma sacrifices, called the 'night-sacrifices'; but these do not form a part of any annual Sattra, like the Gavâm-ayanam, nor is any reason assigned for their separate existence, nor is their duration, which never exceeds a hundred nights, accounted for. Neither the authors of the Brâhmaṇas nor those of the Shrauta Sûtras, much less Sâyaṇa and Yâska give us any clue to the solution of this question; and the Mîmâṃsakas, after explaining the word 'night,' occurring in the names of these sacrifices as equal to 'day,' have allowed these night-sacrifices to remain as an isolated group in the organised system of Soma sacrifices. Under these circumstances it would, no doubt, appear presumptuous for any one to suggest an explanation, so many centuries after what may be called the age of the Sattras. But I feel that the Arctic theory, which, we have seen, is supported by strong independent evidence, not only explains, but appropriately accounts for the original existence of this isolated series of a hundred Soma sacrifices; and I, therefore, proceed to give my view on the point.