Vedic Index of Names and Subjects v1.c3.s20.232

v1.c3.s20.232

¹⁷⁴ For the flood, see Zimmer, op. cit., 101, 357, who is opposed to Weber’s view (Indische Studien, 1, 160; Indische Streifen, 1, 11) that the story preserves an old Āryan tradition, and a reminiscence of the home of the Indians beyond the Himālaya (cf. Muir, Sanskrit Texts, 1², 190; 2², 323, n. 96; Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, 1², 638, and cf. Oldenberg, Religion des Veda, 276, n. 3). For the Ādityas, see Oldenberg, Religion des Veda, 185 et seq.; Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 50, 43 et seq. His view is not accepted by Macdonell, Vedic Mythology, p. 44; Bloomfield, Religion of the Veda, 133. Still more doubtful is Zimmer’s view (Altindisches Leben, 363, 364) of the division of day and night into thirty parts, which he sees in Rv. i. 123, 8, and which he thinks is based on the Babylonian division of the same period of time into sixtieths. Cf. also V. Smith, Indian Antiquary, 34, 230, who argues, but inconclusively, that the use of iron was introduced from Babylonia.