Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Arctic Home in the Vedas c13.s6: The Ten Kings and Râvaṇa

The Arctic Home in the Vedas c13.s6

Language
English

Contents

The Ten Kings and Râvaṇa

c13.s6.1

It has been noticed above that ten gold-like kings (VIII, 5, 38), and ten non-sacrificing kings (VII, 83, 7), are mentioned in the Rig-Veda. But there is an important incident connected with the ten non-sacrificing kings which deserves more than a passing notice in this place. Sudâs, the son of Divodâsa Atithigva, is described as engaged in a fight with the ten non-worshipping (*ayajyavaḥ*) kings, and is said to have received help from Indra and Varuṇa (VII, 33, 3-5 ; 83, 6-8). It is known as the *Dâsharâjña* fight, and Vasiṣṭha, as the priest of Sudâs, is said to have secured the assistance of Indra for him. On this slender basis some scholars have erected a stately edifice of the fight of the Aryan races with the ten non-Aryan or non-worshipping kings. But it seems to me that the *Dâsharâjña* fight can be more simply and naturally explained by taking it to be a different version of Indra's fight with the seven Dânus or demons (X, 120, 6). In X, 49, 8, Indra is called the seven-slayer (sapta-han) with reference either to the seven Dânus or demons (X, 120, 6,) or to the seven cities of Vritra (I, 174, 2), in the seven-bottomed ocean (VIII, 40, 5). Now if Indra is sapta-han on the seven-fold division, he may be easily conceived as dasha-han, or the ten-slayer, on the ten-fold method of division. The word dasha-han does not occur in the Rig-Veda, but the fight with the ten kings (ayajyavaḥ dasha râjânaḥ) practically amounts to the same thing. It has been stated above that amongst Indra's enemies we have persons like Dasha-mâya and Dashoṇi, who are obviously connected in some way with the number ten. The ten gold-like kings mentioned above again seem to represent the ten monthly sun-gods, and the fact that they are said to be given to the sacrificers further strengthens this view. One of Indra's proteges is, we further know, described as Dasha-dyu, or shining ten-fold. If all these facts are put together, we are naturally led to the conclusion that like the seven Dânus or demons, the powers of darkness were sometime conceived as ten-fold, and Indra's helping Sudâs in his fight with the ten non-worshipping kings is nothing more than the old story of the annual fight between light and darkness as conceived by the inhabitants of a place where a summer of ten months was followed by a long winter night of two months, or, in other words which formed the land of the Dashagvas.

c13.s6.2

But our interest in this remarkable fight does not come to an end with this explanation. For when we remember the fact that the word king was not confined to the warrior class in the Rig-Veda, and that in one place (I, 139, 7) it seems to be actually applied to the Aṅgirases, the expressions ‘ten golden kings’ and ‘ten sacrificers’ or ‘ten-fold Aṅgirases,’ or ‘the ten Dashagvas sacrificing for ten months’ become synonymous phrases. Now Bṛihaspati was the chief of the Aṅgirases, and as such may naturally be considered to be the representative of them all; and we have seen that he is represented once as seven-mouthed and seven-headed, and once as ten-mouthed and ten-headed (Rig. IV, 50, 4; A. V. IV, 6, 1). This Bṛihaspati is connected with the story of Saramâ and Paṇis, and is said to have helped Indra in recovering the cows, or is sometimes described as having performed the feat himself (I, 83, 4; X, 108, 6-11). Bṛihaspati is also represented in X, 109, as having lost his wife, who was restored to him by the gods. This is obviously the story of the restoration of the dawn to man, as represented by the chief sacrificer Bṛihaspati. In the Taittirîya Âraṇyaka I, 12, 3-4, Indra is described as the lover of Ahalyâ (Ahalyâyai jâraḥ), and the myth has been explained as referring to the dawn and the sun, by an old orthodox scholar like Kumârila. Ahalyâ in the later literature is the wife of the Ṛishi Gotama (lit. rich in cows); but it is not difficult to perceive that the story of Ahalyâ (which Prof. Max Muller derives from ahan, a day), was originally a dawn-story, or a different version of the legend of Brahmajâyâ narrated in X, 109.

c13.s6.3.1

These facts are very suggestive and call to mind some of the incidents in the story of the Râmâyaṇa. It is quite outside the scope of this book to fully enter into the question of the historical basis of this well-known Indian epic. We are concerned with Vedic myths and Vedic mythology, and if we refer to the Râmâyaṇa we do so simply to point out such resemblances as are too striking to be left unnoticed. The main story in the Râmâyaṇa is narrated in such detail that, on the face of it, it bears the stamp of a historic origin. But even then we have to explain why Râma's adversary was conceived as a ten-headed monster or an unnatural being, and why Râma's father was called Dasharatha or ten-carred. A ten-headed monster cannot ordinarily be regarded as a historical fact, and it seems not unlikely that some of the incidents of Vedic myths may have been skilfully interwoven with the main story of the epic by its author. We have seen above that some of the Indra's enemies are described as Dashoṇi or Dasha-mâya, and that in the Dâsharâjña fight there were ten non-sacrificing or demoniac kings opposed to Sudâs. These ten non-sacrificing kings may well be conceived as a single king with ten heads and spoken of as a ten-headed monster, much in the same way as Bṛihaspati, the chief of the ten Aṅgirases, is said to be ten-headed or ten-mouthed. The fact that the brother of this ten-headed monster slept continuously for six months in a year also indicates his Arctic origin. Prof.

c13.s6.3.2

Rhys, in his Hibbert Lectures, quotes Plutarch to the effect that the Paphlagonians regarded their gods as shut up in a prison during winter and let loose in summer, and interprets the legend as indicating the temporary ascendancy of the powers of darkness over those of light during the continuous night of the Arctic region. If we adopt this view, we can easily explain how all the gods were said to be thrown into prison by Râvaṇa until they were released by Râma. Another fact in the Râmâyaṇa which is supposed to require explanation is the conception of the monkey-god Hanûmân. The Ṛig-Veda mentions a monkey (kapi), who, as Vṛiṣhâkapi, has been elsewhere shown to represent the sun at the autumnal equinox, or according to the Arctic theory discussed in this book, at the time of going down below the horizon into the long darkness of the nether world. It is Dr. Pischel, who first threw out the hint that this Vṛiṣhâkapi may probably be the ancestor of the Purâṇic Hanûmân; and the fact that Hanûmân was born at a time when the sun was said to be eclipsed goes to corroborate the view to a certain extent. Mr. Nârâyaṇ Aiyangâr, in his Essays on Indo-Aryan mythology, further points out that Sîtâ, the wife of Râma, may be traced to the Ṛig-Vedic Sîtâ, meaning "a ploughed furrow" which is invoked to bestow wealth upon the worshiper in IV, 57, 6 and 7; and so far as the birth of Sîtâ from the earth and her final disappearance into it are concerned the explanation appears very probable.

c13.s6.3.3

It seems, therefore, very likely that the mythical element in the Râmâyaṇa was derived from the story of the restoration of the dawn or Brahma-jâya to man as represented by the first sacrificer Bṛihaspati, or the fight of Indra with Vṛitra for the recovery of light. Whether we can go further than this cannot be decided without further research. Prof. Max Muller, in his Lectures on the Science of Language, has shown that many names in the Iliad can be traced back to the Vedas. For instance he derives Helen from Saramâ, Paris from Paṇis, and Briesis from Brisaya. But even then all the personages mentioned in the Iliad cannot be explained in this way. One thing, however, seems certain, that the story of the restoration of the Dawn-wife to her husband was an ancient inheritance both with the Greeks and the Indians; and we need not, therefore, be surprised if we discover a few striking coincidences between the Iliad on the one hand and the Râmâyaṇa on the other; for a common mythical element appears to have been interwoven with the main story, of course with a different local colouring, in each case. The question whether the Râmâyaṇa was copied from Homer is, therefore, entirely meaningless. The fact seems to be that both Homer and Vâlmîki have utilised a common mythological stock, and any resemblances between their works only go to prove the theory of their common origin. It has been pointed out by Prof.

c13.s6.3.4

Weber that in the Buddhistic Dasharatha Jâtaka, Sîtâ is represented as the sister and not as the wife of Râma, and the learned Professor tells us that this must be an ancient version of the story, for a marriage with one’s sister must be considered to be as primeval as Adam himself. The late Mr. Telang was of opinion that the Buddhists must have deliberately misrepresented the story of the Brahmanical epic, and such a perversion is not improbable. But on the theory that certain features of the Vedic dawn-myths were probably interwoven with the main historic story of the epic, we may explain the Buddhistic account by supposing that it was the out-come of an unsuccessful attempt made in pre-Buddhistic time to identify Râma with Sûrya in the Rig-Veda, the latter of whom is described both as the brother and the lover of the Dawn (VII, 75, 5; VI, 55, 4 and 5; X, 3, 3). I have already stated that the subject is too vast to be treated here at any length. My object was to point out a few resemblances between the story of the Râmâyaṇa and the Vedic myths as they occurred to me. But the question, howsoever interesting, is not relevant to the subject in hand, and I must give up the temptation of going into it more fully in this place. The question of ten incarnations is also similarly connected with the ten golden kings, or the ten gods mentioned in the Atharva Veda, or the ten incarnations of Verethreghna in the Avesta. The ten incarnations in the Avesta (Yt.

c13.s6.3.5

XIV) are, a wind, a bull, a horse, a camel, a boar, a youth, a raven, a ram, a buck and a man; and four of them, viz., a horse, a boar, a youth and a man, seem to correspond with Kalki, Varâha, Vâmana and Râma amongst the ten Avatâras mentioned in the Purâṇic literature. This shows that the conception of the ten Avatâras was, at any rate, Indo-Iranian in origin, and it is no doubt interesting to follow it up and trace its development on the Indian soil. The Matsya, the Kûrma, the Varâha, the Nârasiṃha, the Vâmana and, as we have now seen, the Râma Avatâra can be more or less traced to the Rig-Veda. But it would require much patient research to thoroughly investigate these matters, and I cannot do more than to throw out such hints as have occurred to me, and ask the reader to take them for what they are worth. If the Arctic theory is established, it will throw a good deal of new light not only on the Vedic but also on the Purâṇic mythology, and it will then be necessary to revise, in some cases entirely recast, the current explanations of both. But the work as stated previously cannot be undertaken in a book which is mainly devoted to the examination of evidence in support of the new theory.

c13.s6.4

We have now discussed most of the Vedic legends likely to throw any light on the main point of our inquiry. There are many other incidents, which can be better explained on the Arctic theory than at present. For instance, we can now well understand why Mitra and Varuṇa were originally conceived as two correlated deities; for according to our theory they would represent half-year-long light and darkness in the Paradise of the Aryan race, and Varuṇa can then be very well described as "embracing the nights," (*kṣapaḥ pari ṣasvaje*, VIII, 41, 3). But we cannot go into all these points in this place. What I have said is, I think, sufficient to convince any one that there are a number of incidents in the Vedic myths, which are inexplicable on the theory of a diurnal struggle between light and darkness, or the conquest of spring over winter, or of the storm-god over clouds. Thus we have not been able as yet to explain why Vṛitra was killed once a year, why the waters and the light were described as being released simultaneously by killing Vṛitra, or why Indra's fight with Shambara was said to have commenced on the 40th day of *Sharad*, or why the fight was said to be conducted in the *parāvat* regions, why Dīrghatamas was described as having grown old in the 10th *yuga*, why Mārtāṇḍa was cast away as a dead son, why Trita, or the Third, was said to have fallen into a pit, or again why Viṣhṇu's third stride was said to be invisible. We now find that not only all these but many more incidents in the Vedic myths are satisfactorily accounted for, and the legends in their turn directly lead us to the Arctic theory. The legends of Indra and Vṛitra, of Saptavadhri, of Aditi and her seven flourishing and one still-born son, of Sūrya's wheel and of Dīrghatamas, are again found to contain express passages which indicate seven or ten months' period of sunshine at the place, where these legends originated; and unless we are prepared to say that all these may be accidental coincidences, we cannot, I think, legitimately withhold our assent to a theory which explains so many facts, and incidents, hitherto ignored, neglected or misunderstood, in an easy, natural and intelligible manner. I do not mean to say that the Arctic theory would entirely dispense with the necessity of the Dawn, the Storm or the Vernal theory. All that I contend for is that the Arctic theory explains a number of legendary or traditional facts hitherto hopelessly given up as inexplicable and that in the interpretation of Vedic myths it furnishes us with a weapon far more powerful and effective than either the Dawn, the Storm or the Vernal theory. In short, from a mythological point of view alone, there is ample ground to recommend it to our acceptance side by side with, and, in some cases, even in substitution of the old theories. In addition to this it has been already shown in previous chapters that the new theory rests on direct and independent statements of facts, contained in the Rig-Veda, about the duration and nature of the dawn, days and nights, seasons, months and the year in the home of the ancient fathers of the Vedic Ṛiṣhis; and that the Avestic and Roman traditions fully corroborate our conclusion. We have further seen that the theory is perfectly consistent with the latest results of geological and archæological researches. Shall we then still withhold our assent to the only theory which explains so many facts, legends, and incidents, in a natural and intelligent way and which throws such a flood of light on the ancient history of the Aryan race, simply because it seems to be rather uncouth at the first sight? The rules of logic and scientific research will not justify us in doing so, and I fully rely on them for the eventual success or failure of the theory I have endeavoured to prove in these pages.

Cites (3)