The Arctic Home in the Vedas c11.49

Language: English

c11.49.1

We have seen that *shata-kratu* as applied to Indra is interpreted by Western scholars, and in many places even by Sâyaṇa himself, as meaning the lord of a hundred powers. Sâyaṇa now and then (III, 51, 2; X, 103, 7) suggests or gives an alternative explanation, and makes Indra ‘the master of a hundred sacrifices’; but Western scholars have gone further and discarded all other explanations except the one noted above. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the meaning of this epithet, as used in the Rig-Veda, a little more closely in this place. If the word *kratu* in *shata-kratu* be interpreted to mean 'might' or 'power,' the numeral *shata*, which strictly denotes 'a hundred,' will have to be taken as equivalent to 'many' or 'numerous,' inasmuch as no definite set of a hundred powers can be pointed out as specially belonging to Indra. That the word *shata* may be so interpreted is evident from the fact that adjectives like *shata-nîtha* (I, 100, 12) and *shatam-ûti* (I, 102, 6; 130, 8), as applied to Indra in the Rig-Veda, are found in other places in the form of *sahasra-nîtha* (III, 60, 7), and *sahasram-ûti* (I, 52, 2). Again Indra's arrow is once called *shata-bradhna* and also *sahasra-parṇa* in the same verse (VIII, 77, 7); while Soma is represented as going in a hundred ways (*shata-yâman*) in IX, 86, 16, and a few hymns after it is said to be *sahasra-yâman* or going in a thousand ways (IX, 106, 5).

c11.49.2

Even the adjective *shata-manyu*, which Sâyaṇa interprets as meaning 'the master of a hundred sacrifices' in X, 103, 7, has its counterpart, if not in the Rig-Veda, at least in the Sâma-Veda which reads *sahasra-manyu* for *sahasra-muṣhka* in Rig-Veda VI, 46, 3. This shows that the Vedic bards considered *shata* (a hundred) and *sahasra* (a thousand) as interchangeable numerals in some places; and if the numeral *shata* in *shata-kratu* had been of the same character, we should naturally have met with a paraphrase of the epithet as *sahasra-kratu* somewhere in the Vedic literature. But although the epithet *shata-kratu*, as applied to Indra, occurs about sixty times in the Rig-Veda and several times in other Vedic works, nowhere do we find it paraphrased as *sahasra-kratu*, which shews that the Vedic bards did not feel themselves at liberty to alter or paraphrase it as they liked. The adjective *amita-kratu* is applied to Indra in I, 102, 6; but as *amita* does not necessarily mean more than 'one hundred,' it does not follow that on this account we should give up the ordinary meaning of *shata* in *shata-kratu*. If the word *kratu* had nowhere been used in the Rig- Veda to denote a sacrifice, we may have been justified in interpreting shata-kratu in the way suggested by Western scholars. But, as observed by Dr. Haug, when Vasiṣṭha prayed to Indra (VII, 32, 26) “Carry, O Indra !

c11.49.3

our sacrificial performance (kratum) through, just as a father does to his sons, (by assisting them). Teach us, O thou, who art invoked by many, that we may, in this turn (of the night), reach alive the (sphere of) light (jyotis),”¹ the prayer in all probability refers to the sacrificial performance (kratu) held for the purpose of enabling the sacrificers to safely reach the other end of the night. In fact, it refers to the Ati-râtra sacrifice and the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa (IV, 10) quotes and interprets it in the same way. Sâyaṇa, in his commentary on the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa, though not in the Ṛig-Veda Bhâṣya, also takes the same view; and as the Ati-râtra sacrifice is referred to expressly by its name in the Ṛig-Veda (VII, 103, 7) it is not at all unlikely that a verse referring to this Soma sacrifice should occur in other hymns. Hence if there are passages where kratu can be taken to mean ‘a sacrifice,’ there is no reason why the epithet shata-kratu be not understood to mean “the master of a hundred sacrifices” as suggested by the Purâṇic tradition. Another fact which favours this interpretation, is that in the Ṛig-Veda Indra is described as destroying 90, 99 or 100 fortresses or cities (puraḥ) of his enemies (I, 130 7; II, 19, 6; VI, 31, 4; II, 14, 6). Now deva-puraḥ, which means ‘the fortresses of the gods,’ has been² interpreted to mean ‘days’ in the description of the dasha-râtra sacrifice in the Taittirîya Saṃhitâ VII, 2, 5, 3-4;

c11.49.4

and if *deva-puráh* means ‘days,’ the *puráh* (cities, fortresses) of Shambara may well be taken to mean ‘nights.’ This view is confirmed by the statement in the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa, previously quoted, which says that the Asuras found shelter with the night, or, in other words, the darkness of the night was, so to say, their fortress. Indra’s destroying a hundred forts of Shambara is, therefore, equivalent to his fighting with the enemy for a hundred continuous nights, a period during which the ancient sacrificers offered him Soma libations in order that he may be better prepared for the struggle with Vala. The destruction of 99 or 100 forts of the enemy, a group of a hundred nightly sacrifices, the nine and ninety rivers (*sravantīḥ*) which Indra is described as crossing during his fight with Ahi (I, 32, 14), and a hundred leather straps with which Kutsa is said to have bound down Indra to his sacrifice in the Tâṇḍya Brâhmaṇa IX, 2, 22, and from which he is invoked to free himself in Ṛig. X, 38, 5, are but so many different kaleidoscopic views of the same idea which makes Indra and Indra alone the lord of a hundred sacrifices; and if we take all these together they undoubtedly point out to the existence of a hundred continuous nights in the ancient home of the ancestors of the Vedic people.

c11.49.5

In V, 48, 3, ‘a *hundred*,’ moving in the abode of Indra, are said to turn *on* and turn *off* the course of ordinary days when Indra strikes Vṛitra with his bolt;¹ and I think we have here a distinct allusion either to a hundred sacrifices performed or to a hundred continuous nights required for securing a complete victory over the powers of darkness in the nether world, and which nights (or rather one long night of hundred days) may well be described as breaking off and bringing back the succession of ordinary days and nights, inasmuch as the long night immediately follows and precedes the period of sunshine in the Arctic regions.