The Arctic Home in the Vedas c12.28

c12.28

The third objection to the current interpretation of the Vṛitra myth, is that it does not satisfactorily explain the passages, which give the time of Indra’s fight with the demon. On the Storm theory, the fight must be placed in the rainy season or *Varṣhâ*; but the forts of Vṛitra, which Indra is said to have destroyed and thus acquired the epithet *purabhid* or *purandara*, are described in the Ṛig-Veda as autumnal or *shâradîḥ*, i. e., belonging or pertaining to *Sharad*, the season which follows *Varṣhâ*. The discrepancy may be accounted for, by supposing that *Varṣhâ* and *Sharad* were once included under one season which was named not *Varṣhâ* but *Sharad*. But the explanation is opposed to another passage in the Ṛig-Veda (X, 62, 2), which says that Vala was killed at the end of the year (*parivatsare*), unless we again suppose that the year commenced with *Sharad* in those days. Nor can we explain how Arbuda is said to be killed with hima (ice) by Indra. Again, as previously stated, the dawn could not be considered as a prize of the conflict, nor could the fight be said to have been fought in darkness, if we choose the rainy season as the time for the battle of Indra with Vṛitra. It will thus be seen that the Storm theory does not satisfactorily explain the statements regarding the time of the struggle between Indra and Vṛitra.