The Arctic Home in the Vedas c13.s2.4

Language: English

c13.s2.4.1

what was there to be blamed in thee when thou declaredest ‘I am *shipivishṭa*?’” Yâska records (Nir. V, 7-9) an old tradition that according to Aupamanyava, Vishṇu has two names *Shipivishṭa* and *Vishṇu*, of which the former has a bad sense (*kutsitârthîyam*); and then quotes the aforesaid verse which he explains in two ways. The first of these two interpretations accords with that of Aupamanyava; and *shipivishṭa* is there explained by Yâska to mean *shepaḥ iva nirveshṭitaḥ*, or “enveloped like the private parts,” or “with rays obscured” (*apratipanna-rashmiḥ*). Yâska, however, suggests an alternative interpretation and observes that *shipivishṭa* may be taken as a laudatory appellation, meaning “one whose rays (*shipayaḥ*) are displayed (*âvishṭâḥ*).” It is inferred by some scholars from this passage that the meaning of the word *shipivishṭa* had already become uncertain in the days of Yâska; but I do not think it probable, for even in later literature *shipivishṭa* is an opprobrious appellation meaning either “one whose hair has fallen off,” or “one who is afflicted with an incurable skin disease.” The exact nature of the affliction may be uncertain; but there can be no doubt that *shipivishṭa* has a bad meaning even in later Sanskrit literature. But in days when the origin of this phrase, as applied to Vishṇu, was forgotten, theologians and scholars naturally tried to divest the phrase of its opprobrious import by proposing alternative meanings;

c13.s2.4.2

and Yâska was probably the first Nairukta to formulate a good meaning for *shipivishṭa* by suggesting that *shipi* may be taken to mean “rays.” That is why the passage from the Mahâbhârata (Shânti-Parvan, Chap. 342, vv. 69-71), quoted by Muir, tells us that Yâska was the first to apply the epithet to Vishṇu; and it is unreasonable to infer from it, as Muir has done, that the writer of the Mahâbhârata “was not a particularly good Vedic scholar.” In the Taittirîya Saṃhitâ, we are told that Vishṇu was worshipped as *Shipivishṭa* (II, 2, 12, 4 and 5), and that *shipi* means cattle or *pashavaḥ* (II, 5, 5, 2; Tâṇ. Br. XVIII, 6, 26). *Shipivishṭa* is thus explained as a laudatory appellation by taking *shipi* equal to ‘cattle,’ ‘sacrifice’ or ‘rays.’ But these etymological devices have failed to invest the word with a good sense in Sanskrit literature; and this fact by itself is sufficient to show that the word *shipivishṭa* originally was, and has always been, a term of reproach indicating some bodily affliction, though the nature of it was not exactly known. The theological scholars, it is true, have tried to explain the word in a different sense; but this is due to their unwillingness to give opprobrious names to their gods, rather than to any uncertainty about the real meaning of the word. It was thus that the word *shipivishṭa*, which is originally a bad name (*kutsitârthîyam*) according to Aupamanyava, was converted into a mysterious (*guhya*) name for the deity.

c13.s2.4.3

But this transition of meaning is confined only to the theological literature, and did not pass over into the non-theological works, for the obvious reason that in ordinary language the bad meaning of the word was sufficiently familiar to the people. There can, therefore, be little doubt that, in VII, 100, 5 and 6, *shipivishṭa* is used in a bad sense as stated by Aupamanyava. These verses have been translated by Muir as follows:— “I, a devoted worshipper, who know the sacred rites, today celebrate this thy name *shipivishṭa*; I, who am weak, laud thee who art strong and dwellest beyond this lower world (*kshayantam asya rajasah parâke*). What, Vishṇu, hast thou to blame, that thou declaredst, ‘I am *shipivishṭa*’? Do not conceal from us this form (*varpas*), since thou didst assume another shape in the battle.” The phrase “dwelling in the lower world” (*rajasah parâke*), or “beyond this world,” furnishes us with a clue to the real meaning of the passage. It was in the nether world that Vishṇu bore this bad name. And what was the bad name after all? *Shipivishṭa*, or “enveloped like *shepa*,” meaning that his rays were obscured, or that he was temporarily concealed in a dark cover.

c13.s2.4.4

The poet, therefore, asks Viṣṇu not to be ashamed of the epithet, because, says he, the form indicated by the bad name is only temporarily assumed, as a dark armour, for the purpose of fighting with the Asuras, and as it was no longer needed, Viṣṇu is invoked to reveal his true form (varpas) to the worshipper. That is the real meaning of the verses quoted above, and in spite of the attempt of Yāska and other scholars to convert the bad name of Viṣṇu into a good one by the help of etymological speculations, it is plain that shipiviṣṭa was a bad name, and that it signified the dark outer appearance of Viṣṇu in his fight with the demons in the nether world. If the sun is called bṛhach-chhepas when moving in regions above the horizon, he can be very well described as shipiviṣṭa or “enveloped like shepa,” when moving in the nether world; and there is hardly anything therein of which the deity or his worshippers should be ashamed of. Later Purāṇic tradition represents Viṣṇu as sleeping during this period; but whether we take it as sleep or disease it means one and the same thing. It is the story of Viṣṇu going down to the nether world, dark or diseased, to plant his third step on the head of the Asuras, or in a dark armour to help Indra in his struggle for waters and light, a struggle, which, we have seen, lasted for a long time and resulted in the flowing of waters, the recovery of the dawn and the coming out of the sun in a bright armour after a long and continuous darkness.