The Arctic Home in the Vedas c12.62

Language: English

c12.62.1

There is one more incident in the Vṛitra legend which requires to be considered before we close its examination. We have seen that water and light are described as having been simultaneously liberated by Indra after slaughtering Vṛitra. These waters are sometimes spoken of as streams or rivers (II, 15, 3; 11, 2), which flow upwards or udañcha (II, 15, 6), and are said to be seven in number (I, 32, 12; II, 12, 12). The theory of the cosmic circulation of aerial waters explains why these waters are described as flowing upwards simultaneously with the dawn, for as the sun was believed to be carried in the sky by aerial currents, the light of the sun appeared above the horizon when the aerial rivers began to flow up from the nether world where they had been blocked before by Vṛitra. The waters or the rivers were, therefore, aptly described as flowing upwards and bringing the light of the sun with them. But we have still to answer the question why the rivers or waters are described as seven in number, and it is alleged that the Storm theory supplies us with a satisfactory reply to this question. Thus it has been suggested by Western scholars that the seven rivers, here referred to, are the seven rivers of the Panjaub which are flooded during the rainy season by waters released by Indra from the clutches of the demon who confines them in the storm-cloud.

c12.62.2

The rivers of the Panjaub may therefore, it is urged, be well described as being set free to flow (sartave) by Indra himself, and in support of this explanation we are referred to the Rig-Veda X, 75, and to the phrase hapta-hindu occurring in Fargard I of the Vendidad, where it is said to denote the Panjaub or India. But the hypothesis, howsoever tempting it may seem at the first sight, is quite inadequate to explain the seven-fold division of waters in a satisfactory way. It has been pointed out above that the simultaneous release of waters and light can be accounted for only on the theory of the cosmic circulation of aerial waters; and if this is correct, we cannot identify the seven rivers, set free to flow upwards (udañcha) by Indra, with any terrestrial rivers whether in the Panjaub or elsewhere. The Panjaub is again, as its name indicates, a land of five and not of seven rivers; and it is so described in the Vâjasaneyî Saṃhitâ.¹ The term pañcha-nada is, therefore, more appropriate in the case of the Panjaub, than sapta sindhavaḥ or the Hapta-hindu of the Avesta. But we might get over the difficulty by supposing that Kubhâ and Sarasvatî, or any other two tributaries of the Indus were included in the group by the Vedic bards, when they spoke of seven rivers. In the Rig-Veda (X, 75), about fifteen different rivers are mentioned, including the Gaṅgâ, the Yamunâ, the Kubhâ, the Krumu, the Gomatî, the Rasâ, and the five rivers of the Panjaub;

c12.62.3

but nowhere do we find what specific rivers were included in the group of seven rivers. This has given rise to a difference of opinion amongst scholars. Thus Sâyaṇa includes the Ganges and the Jamuna in the group, which, according to Prof. Max Muller, is made up by adding the Indus and the Sarasvatî to the five rivers of the Panjaub. On the other hand, Lassen and Ludwig hold that the Kubhâ must be included in the group at the cost of the Sarasvatî. This shows that we are not on a safe ground in supposing that the expression "seven rivers" once meant what is, by nature, "the land of five rivers." The expression sapta sindhavaḥ occurs in about a dozen places in the Rig-Veda, and in five of these it distinctly denotes the seven rivers set free by Indra along with the release of cows or the recovery of dawn (I, 32, 12 ; II, 12, 3 and 12 ; IV, 28, 1, &c.) ; and for reasons given above, we cannot suppose that they represent any terrestrial rivers in these passages. In the remaining cases, there is not a single instance where the expression may be said to decisively denote only the terrestrial rivers; nay, it is more likely that celestial rivers are referred to everywhere by the expression sapta sindhavaḥ. I do not mean to say that sapta sindhavaḥ, sapta pravataḥ, or sapta sravataḥ can in no case denote any terrestrial rivers. For there are three groups of seven rivers mentioned in the Rig-Veda,—the celestial, the terrestrial and the infernal.

c12.62.4

Thus in X, 64, 8, “thrice three wandering rivers” are mentioned ; while the waters are said “to flow forward triply, seven and seven” in X, 75, 1. It is, therefore, clear that like the Ganges in the Purâṇas, the Vedic bards conceived a group of seven rivers in the heaven, another on the earth, and a third in the nether world, somewhat after the manner of the eleven gods in the heaven, eleven on the earth, and eleven in the waters (I, 139, 11 ; 134, 11 ; X, 65, 9). If so, we cannot say that a seven-fold division of the terrestrial rivers was not known to the Vedic bards. But, for reasons given above, we cannot hold that this seven-fold division was suggested by the rivers of the Panjaub ; and then extended to the upper and the lower celestial hemisphere. The Panjaub, as remarked above, is a land of five rivers and not seven; and though we might raise the number to seven by adding to the group any two insignificant tributaries according to our fancy, yet the artificial character of the device is too apparent to justify us in holding that the expression sapta sindhavaḥ was originally suggested by the rivers of the Panjaub. We must again bear in mind that the seven-fold division of waters does not stand by itself in the Rig-Veda ; but is only a particular case of a general principle of division adopted therein.

c12.62.5

Thus we have seven earthly abodes (I, 22, 16), seven mountains (VIII, 96, 2), seven rays or horses of the sun (I, 164, 3), seven hotṛis (VIII, 60, 16), seven regions (diśaḥ) and seven Âdityas (IX, 114, 3), seven dhītis or devotions (IX, 8, 4), seven sisters or maryādāḥ, (X, 5, 5-6), and possibly seven and seven gods (X, 55, 3), in the Rig-Veda; while in the later Sanskrit literature we have the seven heavens, seven earths, seven mountains, seven oceans and seven nether worlds. This seven-fold division is also found in other Aryan mythologies, as, for instance, in the Avesta, where the earth is said to be divided into seven Karshavares (Yt. X, 16 and 64), and in the Greek mythology, which speaks of the seven layers of heaven over one another. It follows, therefore, that the seven-fold division must be traced back almost to the Indo-European period; and if so, we cannot maintain that the seven-fold division of waters, which is only a particular case of the general principle, was suggested by the rivers of the Panjaub, for, in that case, we shall have to make the Panjaub the home of the Aryans before they separated. But if the rivers set free to flow up by Indra are not terrestrial, and if the expression sapta sindhavaḥ was not originally suggested by the rivers of the Panjaub, it may be asked how we account for the number of rivers and the origin of the phrase Hapta-hindu occurring in the Avesta.

c12.62.6

The true key to the solution of the question will be found in the simultaneous release of waters and light effected by Indra after conquering Vṛitra. In II, 12, 12, Indra, who caused the seven rivers to flow, is described as sapta-rashmiḥ, or seven-rayed, suggesting that seven rays and seven rivers must have, in some way, been connected. We have also seen that the waters and the sun are said to move at the same time in the Parsi scriptures. If so, what can be more natural than to suppose that the seven suns required seven horses or seven aerial rivers to carry them over the sky, much in the same way as Dīrghatamas is said to have been borne upon waters in I, 158, 6? Again according to the legend of Aditi, there were seven suns or monthgods located in seven different regions and producing seven months of sun-shine of different temperatures. But how could the seven suns move in seven different parts of heaven except by the agency of seven different aerial rivers coming up from the nether world, each with its own sun? In short, when the close connection between waters and light is once established, it is not difficult to perceive why the waters and light are each said to be seven-fold. The seven celestial rivers are expressly mentioned in the Rig-Veda (IX, 54,2), and the flowing forth of the seven rivers and the appearance of the dawn on the horizon are described as simultaneous in many passages, some of which have been already referred to above.

c12.62.7

Neither the Storm theory, nor the geography of the Panjaub, satisfactorily accounts for the simultaneous happening of these events; and so long as this difficulty is not solved, except by the Arctic theory and the cosmic circulation of aerial waters, we cannot accept the hypothesis of Western scholars referred to above, howsoever eloquently expounded it may be. As regards the origin of the phrase Hapta-hindu, which is believed to denote India in the Avesta, I think, we can explain it by supposing that the expression sapta sindhavaḥ was an old one, carried by the Aryans with them to their new home, and there applied to new places or countries, just as the British colonists now carry the old names of their mother country to their new places of settlement. Hapta-hindu is not the only expression which occurs in the Avesta in the enumeration of the Aryan countries. We have, Vârena, Haêtumant, Rangha and Harahvaiti in the list, which are the Zend equivalents of Varuṇa, Setumat, Rasâ and Sarasvatî.¹ But it is never argued from it that the Vedic deity, Varuṇa, was so named from the country called Varena by the worshippers of Mazda; and the same may be said of Rasâ and Sarasvatî. Rasâ and Sarasvatî sometimes denote the terrestrial rivers even in the Rig-Veda. But there is ample evidence to show that they were originally the aerial rivers.

c12.62.8

It is, therefore, more natural to hold that all these were ancient mythological names brought with them by the Aryan settlers to their new home and there applied to new places or objects. There are places in Burma which are named Ayodhya, Mithila, &c., and this is explained on the ground that they were so named by the Indian settlers in Burma after the well-known places in their native land. There is no reason why the same theory should not be applied in the case of Hapta-hindu, especially when we see that the rivers set free by Indra by slaughtering Vṛitra cannot but be celestial.