Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1: Volume 1

The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1

Language
English

Contents

Volume 1

Front matter

v1.c1.1

in 2026

v1.c1.2

https://archive.org/details/religionphilosop0031arth Margaret Crume This page contains no text, headings, or figures to transcribe.

v1.c1.3

THE HARVARD ORIENTAL SERIES

v1.c1.4

VOLUME THIRTY-ONE

v1.c1.5

THE volumes of the HARVARD ORIENTAL SERIES are printed at the expense of funds given to Harvard University by Henry Clarke Warren (1854–1899), of Cambridge, Massachusetts. The third volume, Warren’s *Buddhism*, is a noble monument to his courage in adversity and to his scholarship. The Series, as a contribution to the work of enabling the Occident to understand the Orient, is the fruit of an enlightened liberality which now seems to have been an almost prophetic anticipation on his part of a great political need.

v1.c1.6

A brief account of Mr. Warren’s life is given at the end of volume 30, Burlingame’s *Buddhist Legends*. The account is reprinted at the end of the seventh and eighth issues (1922) of volume 3, Warren’s *Buddhism*.

v1.c1.7

A list of the volumes of this Series, with titles and descriptions, is printed at the end of volume 32, and is followed by a partial list of Public Libraries in which the Series may be found.

v1.c1.9

HARVARD ORIENTAL SERIES

v1.c1.10

EDITED

v1.c1.11

WITH THE COÖPERATION OF VARIOUS SCHOLARS

v1.c1.12

BY

v1.c1.13

CHARLES ROCKWELL LANMAN

v1.c1.14

*Professor at Harvard University; Honorary Fellow of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, of France, of England, and of Germany; Corresponding Member of the Society of Sciences at Göttingen, the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres of the Institute of France*

v1.c1.15

Volume Thirty=one

v1.c1.17

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

v1.c1.18

Harvard University Press

v1.c1.19

LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

v1.c1.20

THE RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE VEDA AND UPANISHADS

v1.c1.21

BY

v1.c1.22

ARTHUR BERRIEDALE KEITH D.C.L., D.Litt. *Of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, and of the Scottish Bar; Regius Professor of Sanskrit and Comparative Philology at the University of Edinburgh; formerly of the Colonial Office*

v1.c1.24

The first half, Chapters 1–19 Page 1 to page 312

v1.c1.25

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS Harvard University Press LONDON : HUMPHREY MILFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

v1.c1.26

Keith’s Religion and Philosophy of the Veda was printed in 1925 from monotype-matter, each of the two volumes in 2000 copies

v1.c1.28

Printed (on paper made at its Wolvercote Mill) and bound at the University Press, Oxford, England by Frederick Hall, Printer to the University

v1.c1.29

Some other works by A. Berriedale Keith

v1.c1.30

Śāṅkhāyana Āraṇyaka, trans., 1908. Aitareya Āraṇyaka, ed. and trans., 1909. Vedic Index of Names and Subjects (with A. A. Macdonell), 1912. The Veda of the Black Yajus School (H.O.S. 18 and 19), 1914. Indian Mythology (Mythology of All Races, vol. 6), 1917. The Sāṁkhya System, 1918 (2nd ed., 1924). Rig-Veda Brāhmaṇas (H.O.S. 25), 1920. Indian Logic and Atomism, 1921. The Karma Mīmāṁsā, 1921. Buddhist Philosophy, 1923. Classical Sanskrit Literature, 1923. Sanskrit Drama, 1924.

v1.c1.31

State Succession in International Law, 1907. Responsible Government in the Dominions, 1909 (2nd ed., 3 vols., 1912). Imperial Unity and the Dominions, 1916. Report on Home Administration of Indian Affairs (in Parliamentary Paper Cmd. 207), 1919. The Belgian Congo and the Berlin Act, 1919. The War Government of the Dominions, 1921. Dominion Home Rule in Practice, 1921. Conflict of Laws (with A. V. Dicey), 1922. The Constitution, Administration, and Laws of the Empire, 1924.

v1.c1.32

TO

v1.c1.33

MARY HINCKLEY LANMAN WIFE AND HELPMATE OF CHARLES ROCKWELL LANMAN PROFESSOR AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Note for Librarians and Cataloguers

v1.c2.1

THE Library of Congress issues printed catalogue-cards made to follow rules now generally approved by the best experts. The cards for this work bear the serial number 25—26743. Complete sets of these cards may be had (at a nominal price of 12 cents for each set of 8 or less) upon application to ‘The Library of Congress, Card Division, Washington, D. C.’ But (to foreign librarians, at least) the suggestion may be welcome that this work be recorded in Library Catalogues under the following entries:

v1.c2.2

Keith, Arthur Berriedale, 1879– (author) VEDAS (subject) UPANISHADS (subject) Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads (title) Harvard Oriental Series, v. 31–32 (series-title) Lanman, Charles Rockwell, 1850– (editor)

Preface

v1.c3.1

IT is the object of this work to present to the student of religion, in objective form and with constant reference to the original sources and to modern discussions, a comprehensive but concise account of the whole of the religion and philosophy of the Vedic period in India. The difficulty of the task lies not merely in the abundance of the original sources, which I have had occasion to study in detail in making my translations of the Taittirīya Saṁhitā and the Brāhmaṇas and the Āraṇyakas of the Rigveda, but also in the extreme divergence of view among modern interpreters of Vedic literature. Doubtless it is owing to this cause that the extraordinary value of Vedic religion to the student of religious belief has been so completely overlooked by Sir James Frazer and Professor S. Reinach in their theories of religion, and that it has been so gravely misinterpreted by Professor Sir William Ridgeway in his essays on the origin of the drama. The account of Vedic religion given in this work will, I trust, do something to restore to that religion its just place in the study of theology.

v1.c3.2

The writer of such a work must at every turn derive much from his predecessors. An effort has been made to assign to their authors the most important of the theories mentioned, but I desire to acknowledge a more general obligation to certain scholars. In the treatment of the mythology I am deeply indebted to Professor A. A. Macdonell's *Vedic Mythology*, which is not merely an invaluable and exhaustive storehouse of facts, but is distinguished by unfailing sureness and clearness of judgement, and I have derived much help from Bergaigne's *Religion Védique*, Hillebrandt's *Vedische Mythologie*, and Oldenberg's *Religion des Veda*, though I have been unable to follow these authors in the more imaginative of their theories. For the ritual I owe many facts to Hillebrandt, Schwab, Caland, Henry, Weber, and last, but certainly not least, to my predecessor, Professor J. Eggeling. In its explanation I find myself often in agreement with Oldenberg, the brilliance and charm of whose work in this sphere can hardly be overestimated. I have made free use of the light cast on ritual by other religions, and I am conscious of having derived great profit from the works of Dr. L. R. Farnell;

v1.c3.3

but neither the totemism of Durkheim or S. Reinach nor the vegetation-spirits of Mannhardt and Sir J. Frazer have helped me in my study of the Veda. For the philosophy of the Brāhmaṇas and the Upaniṣads, Lévi, Oltramare, and Deussen have been of the greatest assistance through the completeness of the collections of material which they have made, and the fact that I have found it necessary to refuse to accept Deussen's main theories must not be taken to indicate any lack of appreciation of the great merits of his work. Nor should I conclude without an expression of indebtedness to Roth, Max Müller, Whitney, Hopkins, Bloomfield, and to the untiring labours and accomplished scholarship of Professor Charles R. Lanman, who has added to the many obligations which I owe to him by permitting these volumes to appear in the Harvard Oriental Series, that *monumentum aere perennius* of his unselfish devotion to the study of the life and literature of India.

v1.c3.4

A. BERRIEDALE KEITH.

v1.c3.5

Edinburgh University,
*June* 1, 1916.

v1.c3.6

*Nonumque prematur in annum.* When the Preface to this work was written neither author nor editor imagined that war conditions would compel obedience to the Horatian maxim in so literal a fashion. In revising the work for press I have taken note, so far as was compatible with the necessity of avoiding the expansion of the work beyond due bounds, of those contributions to our knowledge made since 1916, which appeared to me of most value in respect either of the results attained or of the methods adopted. Recent work on the origin of religion I have not discussed, as I have found nothing in it to throw light on Vedic beliefs, and a criticism on general grounds would involve transgression of the limits of these volumes.

v1.c3.7

I trust that nothing of first-class importance in the literature has escaped my attention; if it has, some share of the blame must fall on the deplorably inadequate provision made for Sanskrit research in this University, as the result in part of public indifference, in part of the many insistent demands on strictly limited academic resources. It is deeply to be regretted that British opinion should be so heedless of the duty of contributing to the investigation of the ancient civilization of a land whence Britain has derived so much of her power and wealth. But a sense of this inexcusable neglect only increases my sincere gratitude to the founder and the editor of the Harvard Oriental Series, whose enlightened and impartial generosity alone have rendered possible the publication of my studies on the religion and philosophy of the Veda.

v1.c3.8

The delay in publication causes me one serious regret, that this work cannot now evoke the criticism of Hermann Oldenberg, that admirable scholar, to whose writings on Vedic religion and philosophy I desire once more—*inane munus*—to express my deep obligation.

v1.c3.9

To my wife I owe sincere thanks for much help and criticism. Mr. Frederick Hall and his staff have, as always, spared no trouble in the production and printing of the volumes, and I desire to express my high appreciation of their efforts.

v1.c3.10

The University of Edinburgh, *June* 1, 1924.

Contents

v1.c4.1

The twenty-nine chapters of this work are numbered, for practical convenience, in one single arithmetical sequence. But they are grouped in five main divisions, or PARTS, as follows :

v1.c4.2

| PART | CHAP. |
| I. THE SOURCES (4 chapters, pages 1–57) . . . . | 1–4 |
| II. THE GODS AND DEMONS OF THE VEDA (12 chapters) | 5–16 |
| III. VEDIC RITUAL (6 chapters, pages 252–402) . . . | 17–22 |
| IV. THE SPIRITS OF THE DEAD (3 chapters, pages 403–432) | 23–25 |
| V. THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE VEDA (4 chapters, pages 433–613) . . . . . . | 26–29 |

v1.c4.4

CONTENTS OF PART I.—THE SOURCES

v1.c4.5

| CHAP. | PAGE |
| 1. The Rigveda and the Aryans . . . . . . | 1 |
| 2. The later Saṁhitās and the Brāhmaṇas . . . . | 16 |
| 3. The later literature . . . . . . . | 27 |
| 4. The Avesta and Comparative Mythology . . . . | 32 |
| § 1. The Avesta . . . . . . . | 32 |
| § 2. Comparative Mythology and Religion . . . | 36 |
| § 3. The origin of religion . . . . . . | 42 |
| § 4. The mingling of races and cultures . . . | 51 |
| § 5. Popular and hieratic religion . . . . | 55 |

v1.c4.6

CONTENTS OF PART II.—THE GODS AND DEMONS OF THE VEDA

v1.c4.7

| 5. The nature of the Gods and Demons . . . . . | 58 |
| § 1. Nature Gods and abstract Deities . . . . | 58 |
| (*a*) Anthropomorphism . . . . . . | 58 |
| (*b*) Theriomorphism and the worship of animals . | 61 |
| (*c*) Animatism, Sondergötter, and Abstract Deities . | 63 |
| § 2. Fetishism . . . . . . . | 66 |
| § 3. Animism and the spirits of the dead . . . | 71 |
| § 4. The term Deva . . . . . . . | 75 |

v1.c4.8

8. The Great Gods—Celestial . . . . . . . 95 § 1. Dyaus the Father . . . . . . . 95 § 2. Varuṇa, Mitra, and the Ādityas . . . . . . 96 § 3. Sūrya, Savitṛ, and Pūṣan . . . . . . . 104 § 4. Viṣṇu . . . . . . . . 108 § 5. Vivasvant . . . . . . . . 112 § 6. The Açvins . . . . . . . . 113 § 7. The Goddess Dawn . . . . . . . 119 § 8. The Moon . . . . . . . . 122
9. The Great Gods—Aerial . . . . . . . 124 § 1. Indra . . . . . . . . 124 § 2. Trita Āptya . . . . . . . 134 § 3. Apāṁ Napāt . . . . . . . 135 § 4. Ahi Budhnya . . . . . . . 136 § 5. Aja Ekapād . . . . . . . 137 § 6. Mātariçvan . . . . . . . . 138 § 7. Vāyu and Vāta . . . . . . . 139 § 8. Parjanya . . . . . . . . 140 § 9. The Waters . . . . . . . . 141 § 10. Rudra . . . . . . . . 142 § 11. The Maruts or Rudras . . . . . . . 150
10. The Great Gods—Terrestrial . . . . . . . 154 § 1. Agni . . . . . . . . 154 § 2. Bṛhaspati and other forms of Agni . . . . . 162 § 3. The God Soma . . . . . . . 166 § 4. The Rivers . . . . . . . . 172 § 5. The Earth . . . . . . . . 174 § 6. The Sea . . . . . . . . 174
11. The Minor Gods of Nature . . . . . . . 176 § 1. The Ṛbhus and the Ṛtus . . . . . . 176 § 2. The Gandharvas and Apsarases . . . . . . 179 § 3. Spirits of the Forest, the Trees, the Plants . . . . 184 § 4. Spirits of Agriculture, Pasture, and the Mountains . . . 186 § 5. Deities of the House . . . . . . . 188 § 6. Divine Implements . . . . . . . 188 § 7. Divine Animals . . . . . . . 189 § 8. Totemism . . . . . . . . 195 § 9. The lesser Nature Goddesses . . . . . . 197 § 10. Constellations and Time Periods . . . . . 200 12. Abstract Deities and Sondergötter . . . . . 203 § 1. The nature of Abstract Deities . . . . 203 § 2. Tvaṣṭṛ and other Agent Gods . . . . 204 § 3. The Creator Gods . . . . . 206 § 4. Subjective Deities . . . . . 210 § 5. Deified states or conditions . . . . 211 § 6. Aditi and Diti . . . . . 215 § 7. The wives of the Gods . . . . 218

v1.c4.9

13. Groups of Deities . . . . . . 220 § 1. Dual Divinities . . . . . 220 § 2. Groups of Gods . . . . . 221

v1.c4.10

14. Priests and Heroes . . . . . . 223 § 1. The Priests of the fire-cult . . . . 223 § 2. Other ancient Priests . . . . 226 § 3. Warriors . . . . . . 228 § 4. The First of Men . . . . . 228

v1.c4.11

15. The Demons . . . . . . . 231 § 1. The Enemies of the Gods . . . . 231 § 2. The Enemies of Man . . . . 236

v1.c4.12

16. The Gods and their worshippers . . . . . 243

v1.c4.13

CONTENTS OF PART III.—VEDIC RITUAL

v1.c4.14

17. The ritual in the Rigveda . . . . . 252

v1.c4.15

18. The nature of the Vedic sacrifice . . . . . 257 § 1. The sacrifice as a gift . . . . 257 § 2. The sacrifice as a spell . . . . 260 § 3. The removal of sin by sacrifice and magic . . 264 § 4. Communion and sacrament in the sacrifice . . 268 § 5. The materials of the sacrifice . . . . 278 § 6. Fire and the sacrifice . . . . 285 § 7. The performers of the sacrifice . . . . 289

v1.c4.16

19. Rites ancillary to the sacrifice . . . . . 300 § 1. The consecration . . . . . 300 § 2. The Avabhṛtha . . . . . 303 § 3. Taboos . . . . . . 304 § 4. The forms of prayer . . . . 310

v1.c4.17

*At this point occurs the break between Chapters 1–19 and Chapters 20–29*
*The latter group is bound up as volume 32*

v1.c4.18

| CHAP. | PAGE |
| 20. The sacrifices of the Çrauta ritual . . . . . . | 313 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 1. General characteristics . . . . . . . | 313 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 2. Establishment and re-establishment of the fires . . | 316 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 3. The Fire-god oblation or Agnihotra . . . . | 318 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 4. The new-moon and full-moon sacrifices . . . . | 319 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 5. The four-month or seasonal sacrifices . . . . | 321 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 6. First-fruit sacrifice (āgrayaṇa iṣṭi) and others . . . | 323 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 7. The animal sacrifice . . . . . . . | 324 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 8. The Soma sacrifice . . . . . . . | 326 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 9. The Pravargya or hot-milk sacrifice . . . . | 332 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 10. The Aikādaçina animal offering . . . . . | 333 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 11. Other forms of Jyotiṣṭoma . . . . . . | 334 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 12. Other Soma sacrifices of one day's duration . . . | 336 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 13. The Vājapeya or drink-of-strength . . . . | 339 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 14. The royal consecration . . . . . . | 340 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 15. The horse sacrifice . . . . . . . | 343 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 16. The human sacrifice . . . . . . . | 347 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 17. Other Ahīna rites . . . . . . . | 348 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 18. The Sattras or sacrificial sessions . . . . . | 349 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 19. The Sautrāmaṇī . . . . . . . . | 352 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 20. The piling of the fire-altar . . . . . . | 354 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 21. The Hotṛ formulae . . . . . . . | 356 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 22. Expiations . . . . . . . . | 356 |
| 21. The domestic ritual . . . . . . . . | 358 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 1. General character of the domestic sacrifices . . . | 358 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 2. The various offerings . . . . . . . | 359 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 3. Birth-ceremonies and others . . . . . . | 366 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 4. Studentship . . . . . . . . | 369 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 5. Marriage . . . . . . . . | 373 |
| 22. Magic in the ritual . . . . . . . . | 379 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 1. The relations of magic to religion . . . . . | 379 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 2. The nature of Vedic magic . . . . . . | 380 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 3. The removal of hostile influences . . . . . | 382 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 4. The attraction of beneficial substances and powers . | 386 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 5. Mimetic magic . . . . . . . | 388 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 6. Divination and ordeal . . . . . . . | 390 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 7. The magic spell . . . . . . . | 393 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 8. The magic sacrifice . . . . . . . | 396 |
| \ \ \ \ \ \ § 9. Yoga practices . . . . . . . . | 401 |

v1.c4.19

CONTENTS OF PART IV.—THE SPIRITS OF THE DEAD

v1.c4.20

| CHAP. | PAGE |
| 23. The abodes of the dead . . . . . . | 403 |
| \t§ 1. The nature of the dead . . . . . . | 403 |
| \t§ 2. The places of the dead . . . . . . | 406 |
| \t§ 3. The transmutation of the dead . . . . . | 415 |
| 24. The disposal of the dead . . . . . . . | 417 |
| 25. The cult of the dead . . . . . . . | 425 |
| \t§ 1. The living and the dead . . . . . . | 425 |
| \t§ 2. The offerings to the dead in the domestic ritual . . | 427 |
| \t§ 3. The offerings to the dead in the Çrauta ritual . . . | 429 |

v1.c4.21

CONTENTS OF PART V.—THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE VEDA

v1.c4.22

| 26. The beginnings of Vedic Philosophy . . . . . . | 433 |
| 27. The Theosophy of the Brāhmaṇas . . . . . . | 440 |
| \t§ 1. The general character of the Brāhmaṇa philosophy . . | 440 |
| \t§ 2. The highest principle of the universe . . . . | 442 |
| \t§ 3. The theory of the sacrifice . . . . . . | 454 |
| \t§ 4. The ethics of the Brāhmaṇas . . . . . | 468 |
| \t§ 5. Modes of thought and categories . . . . . | 482 |
| 28. The Philosophy of the Upaniṣads . . . . . . | 489 |
| \t§ 1. The origin of the Upaniṣads . . . . . . | 489 |
| \t§ 2. The extant Upaniṣads . . . . . . . | 497 |
| \t§ 3. The interpretation of the Upaniṣads . . . . | 507 |
| \t§ 4. The problem and conditions of knowledge . . . | 513 |
| \t§ 5. The nature of the Absolute . . . . . . | 516 |
| \t§ 6. The Absolute and the Universe . . . . . | 522 |
| \t§ 7. Māyā and Prakṛti—Illusion and Nature . . . . | 529 |
| \t\t(*a*) Illusion . . . . . . . . . | 529 |
| \t\t(*b*) Nature . . . . . . . . . | 532 |
| \t\t(*c*) The origin of the Sāṁkhya and Buddhism . . . | 535 |
| \t§ 8. The Supreme and the Individual Souls . . . . | 551 |
| \t§ 9. The four states of the Soul . . . . . . | 567 |
| \t§ 10. The doctrine of transmigration . . . . . | 570 |
| \t§ 11. The way of salvation . . . . . . | 581 |
| \t§ 12. The ethics of the Upaniṣads and Yoga . . . . | 584 |
| \t§ 13. The significance of the philosophy of the Upaniṣads . . | 592 |
| 29. Greece and the philosophy of India . . . . . . | 601 |

v1.c4.23

APPENDIX

v1.c4.24

| | PAGE |
| A. The age of the Avesta and the Rigveda . . . . | 614 |
| B. The sacrifice of Puruṣa and the origin of the world . . . | 619 |
| C. The Aryan conception of the heaven . . . . | 621 |
| D. The drink of immortality . . . . . | 623 |
| E. The Indo-European fire-cult . . . . . | 625 |
| F. Cremation and burial . . . . . | 626 |
| G. The Dravidian element in Indian thought . . . | 629 |
| H. Pythagoras and Parmenides . . . . . | 634 |

v1.c4.25

| General Index . . . . . . . | 639 |
| Sanskrit Index . . . . . . . | 675 |

Transliteration

v1.c5.1

The system of transliteration adopted by W. D. Whitney in his *Sanskrit Grammar* and C. R. Lanman in his *Sanskrit Reader* has been followed. For purposes of pronunciation the vowels may be treated as in Italian, but *a* is analogous to the sound in English ‘but’. The consonants may be pronounced as in English, the diacritical marks being ignored, except in the following cases: *c* is similar to *ch* in church: *ç* and *ṣ* are approximately *sh* in shun: *s* is always surd as in sun: *ṁ* or *ṅ* is a nasalization of the preceding vowel: the aspirates like *th* are pronounced approximately like *th* in pothook. The letter *ṛ* may be taken as nearly *ri*. Similarly *ḷ* is *li* or *lri*.

v1.c5.2

The complete alphabet is as follows: vowels: a ā i ī u ū ṛ ṝ ḷ e ai o au; gutturals: k kh g gh ṅ; palatals: c ch j jh ñ; domals: ṭ ṭh ḍ ḍh ṇ; dentals: t th d dh n; labials: p ph b bh m; semivowels: y r l v; further: ṅ ṁ ḥ.

Abbreviations

v1.c6.1

| AA. | Aitareya Āraṇyaka. | Kauṣ. | Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad. |
| AB. | Aitareya Brāhmaṇa. | Kena. | Kena Upaniṣad (=JUB. 4. 18-21). |
| AGS. | Āçvalāyana Gṛhya Sūtra. | KhGS. | Khādira Gṛhya Sūtra. |
| ĀÇS. | Āçvalāyana Çrauta Sūtra. | LÇS. | Lāṭyāyana Çrauta Sūtra. |
| AU. | Aitareya Upaniṣad (=AA. 2. 4–6). | MB. | Mantra Brāhmaṇa. |
| AV. | Atharvaveda. | MGS. | Mānava Gṛhya Sūtra. |
| AV. Par. | Atharvaveda Pariçiṣṭa. | MP. | Mantrapāṭha. |
| ApDS. | Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra. | MÇS. | Mānava Çrauta Sūtra. |
| ApGS. | Āpastamba Gṛhya Sūtra. | MS. | Maitrāyaṇī Saṁhitā. |
| ApÇS. | Āpastamba Çrauta Sūtra. | Mahānār. | Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad. |
| BAU. | Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. | Maitr. | Maitrāyaṇīya Upaniṣad. |
| BDS. | Baudhāyana Dharma Sūtra. | Muṇḍ. | Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad. |
| BGS. | Baudhāyana Gṛhya Sūtra. | Nir. | Nirukta. |
| BÇS. | Baudhāyana Çrauta Sūtra. | PB. | Pañcaviṁça Brāhmaṇa. |
| BhGS. | Bhāradvāja Gṛhya Sūtra. | PGS. | Pāraskara Gṛhya Sūtra. |
| CU. | Chāndogya Upaniṣad. | PU. | Praçna Upaniṣad. |
| GB. | Gopatha Brāhmaṇa. | RV. | Rigveda. |
| GDS. | Gautama Dharma Sūtra. | ÇA. | Çāṅkhāyana Āraṇyaka. |
| GGS. | Gobhila Gṛhya Sūtra. | ÇB. | Çatapatha Brāhmaṇa. |
| HGS. | Hiraṇyakeçi Gṛhya Sūtra. | ÇGS. | Çāṅkhāyana Gṛhya Sūtra. |
| HÇS. | Hiraṇyakeçi Çrauta Sūtra. | ÇÇS. | Çāṅkhāyana Çrauta Sūtra. |
| Içā. | Içā Upaniṣad (=VS. xl). | ÇU. | Çvetāçvatara Upaniṣad. |
| JB. | Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa. | SVB. | Sāmavidhāna Brāhmaṇa. |
| JGS. | Jaiminīya Gṛhya Sūtra. | TA. | Taittirīya Āraṇyaka. |
| JUB. | Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa. | TB. | Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa. |
| KB. | Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa. | TS. | Taittirīya Saṁhitā. |
| KÇS. | Kātyāyana Çrauta Sūtra. | TU. | Taittirīya Upaniṣad. |
| KS. | Kāṭhaka Saṁhitā. | VS. | Vājasaneyi Saṁhitā. |
| KU. | Kaṭha Upaniṣad. | Vait. | Vaitāna Sūtra. |
| Kauç. | Kauçika Sūtra. | VārGS. | Vārāha Gṛhya Sūtra. |

Part I. The Sources

Chapter 1. The Rigveda and the Aryans

v1.c8.2

THE oldest and most important of the sources for Indian religion is the collection of 1,028 hymns known as the Rigveda Saṁhitā, which has been handed down to us in the Çākala recension. Preserved in its early stages by oral tradition and long regarded as too sacred to be reduced to writing, the text affords abundant internal proof of the general accuracy with which it was preserved. Moreover, an invaluable form of control exists in the texts of the other Vedas, the Yajurveda in its different recensions, the Sāmaveda, and the Atharvaveda, all of which contain much of the matter of the Rigveda. The older view, that in these texts might be found traces of earlier forms of the verses of the Rigveda, has not borne close examination and comparison in detail:¹ with a very few possible exceptions the variations which are found in these texts from the Rigveda can be unhesitatingly classed as products either of an inferior tradition on the one hand or of deliberate alteration on the other. Similarly the efforts which have been made by Hillebrandt² to prove that, in a stage earlier than that recorded, the Rigveda was a definitely practical collection of hymns, arranged according to their connexion with the sacrificial ritual, must be pronounced to have failed.³ Whereas all the other Saṁhitās, except the Atharvaveda, which occupies a peculiar position, are definitely in their non-Brāhmaṇa portions manuals of the chants and formulae used by the priests in the ritual, the Rigveda is not a practical but a historical hand-book. It must represent a collection of hymns made by unknown hands at a time when for some unrecorded reason it was felt desirable to preserve the religious poetry current among the Vedic tribes.

v1.c8.3

¹ Oldenberg, *Prolegomena*, pp. 289 ff.; cf. Bloomfield, *Rig-Veda Repetitions*, p. 406; Brune, *Zur Textkritik der dem Sāmaveda mit dem VIII Maṇḍala des Ṛgveda gemeinsamen Stellen* (1909).

v1.c8.4

² *ZDMG.* xl. 708; *GGA.* 1889, pp. 418 ff.

v1.c8.5

³ Oldenberg, *GGA.* 1907, pp. 211 ff.; Keith, *JRAS.* 1908, pp. 224-9.

v1.c8.6

The collection must have been made from a considerable area of country, for it contains hymns emanating from very varied families. Tradition ascribes to books ii to vii as authors the seers Gautama, Viçvāmitra, Vāmadeva, Atri, Bharadvāja, and Vasiṣṭha, but this view cannot be taken quite literally: the hymns themselves reveal abundant evidence that, for the most part at least, they were not composed by these personages, but by men claiming to be of the families bearing their names, and the family character of the hymns in these books is in the main clear. With these six books must be classed the groups of hymns ascribed to different families or authors in book i, 51–191, and this may have been the extent of the oldest collection made, though it is perhaps more likely that i. 51–191 were collected later than ii–vii. The earlier portion of book i and the whole of book viii are ascribed to seers of the Kaṇva family; it would appear that these two separate collections were at some time added, the one in front of, and the other after, the existing Saṁhitā, but which addition was first made there is no clear ground to show.¹ When the collection had reached the compass of seven or eight books, another, now the ninth, was created by extracting from the other books all the hymns addressed to Soma Pavamāna, that is the Soma as it was poured through the filter, which were then united into one group: for this change no reason is obvious.² This did not, however, end the history of the collection: at a time when the nine books had already taken form, a tenth was added, consisting on the whole of more recent hymns.³ The late character of this book can be established by a number of proofs. Its extent, 191 hymns, has obviously been brought up to that of book i; the language shows development in different aspects: hiatus becomes rarer, old words like the particle *sīm* disappear, new words and forms are found, and the metre shows affinities with the metre of the later Saṁhitās. The same result is indicated by the new features in religion which appear: the Dawn, the most poetic of Indian goddesses, all but disappears, Varuṇa, most moral and spiritual of Vedic deities, loses in position, while Indra, the Indian god *par excellence*, and Agni, the priestly god of fire, retain all their importance. The more or less abstract conception of the All-gods increases in importance, and real abstract deities appear in Faith and Wrath. The growth of religious thought is also shown by the occurrence of philosophical and cosmogonic hymns, and in imitation of the hymns to the gods the wedding and funeral services are now provided with elaborate hymnologies in place of the more simple formulae which were doubtless earlier in use.⁴ The book shows also the employment of hymns for spells and incantations, and here again we must doubtless see the application to the lower side of life of the instrument devised primarily to placate the high gods. The advance in religion is paralleled by the advance in society: in this book we for the first time meet the fully developed system of the four castes or classes, Brahman, warrior, clansman, and Çūdra.

v1.c8.7

¹ That viii had no claim to age was indicated by Hopkins, JAOS. xvii. 23 ff., and is confirmed by the evidence of repetitions, Bloomfield, *Rig-Veda Repetitions*, pp. 640 ff.

v1.c8.8

² ix is usually superior to viii (Bloomfield, p. 644). As new books were added, the Soma Pavamāna hymns were added to what is now ix. Its position as ix, however, suggests that i–viii already existed.

v1.c8.9

³ Oldenberg, *Prolegomena*, pp. 263 ff.

v1.c8.10

⁴ Contrast Bloomfield, *op. cit.*, pp. 21, 649, who holds that x. 14. 14 and 15. 14 are later than i. 15. 9; 108. 12, but neither case is convincing. The wedding hymn is clearly late; x. 85. 18 echoes i. 108. 1, based on vii. 61. 1.

v1.c8.11

It is naturally tempting to seek to carry the process of dissection further, and to discover the different ages of the several portions of the Rigveda.

v1.c8.12

Within the groups it is often possible to prove introduction of later material by the violation of the rules of order adopted by the compilers of the collection,¹ but differences of age among the groups themselves and between individual hymns, which are not marked out as foreign to the groups in which they are found, cannot yet be established. The most elaborate attempt made of late to find strata in the Rigveda is that of Prof. Arnold,² who by the test of metre divides the collection into five layers which cut sharply across the traditional grouping; but his criteria are clearly unsound,³ and depend on a purely hypothetical reconstruction of the metrical history of the hymns, to which objection can be taken on many grounds. Moreover, the results thus attained render any intelligible account of the development of Vedic religion impossible: the hymns to Dawn are certainly the most beautiful and least sacerdotal of all those of the Rigveda, and, for this reason and because in the later cult Dawn has but a small place, it is natural to assign them to the earliest period of Indian hymnology. The same conclusion is also indicated by the fact that this view alone harmonizes with the probable movements of the Vedic Indians. There can be little doubt that the bulk of the hymns cannot have been produced, as was formerly thought, in the Punjab, where the phenomena of the rains are poor and uninteresting and could not have given rise to the remarkable stress laid on these natural features by the Vedic poets in their conceptions of Indra and the Maruts. We must seek for the main home of the Vedic Indian in the country afterwards famous as Kurukṣetra, between the rivers Sarasvatī, now Sarsūti, and Dṛṣadvatī, probably the modern Chitang, and in the region of Ambāla, and the oldest hymns only, those to Dawn, can reasonably be supposed to have been composed while the invaders were still in the land of the five rivers.⁴ But Prof. Arnold is forced by his metrical tests to ascribe the importance of the Dawn and of the deities, sky and earth, which, like the Dawn, seem among the oldest, to a secondary state of the Vedic religion, when Dawn and sky and earth were not revered for themselves, but because of their connexion with the fire ritual, dawn being the time of sacrifice and the fire serving as a pillar to join heaven and earth, but yet to keep them asunder, while in the earliest period he sets Indra, the warrior god.

v1.c8.13

¹ Oldenberg, *Prolegomena* (1888) and *Ṛgveda-Noten* (1909–12).

v1.c8.14

² *Vedic Metre* (1905). Contrast Bloomfield, *Rig-Veda Repetitions*, pp. 535 ff., 640, 687, for the use of grammatical, lexical, metrical, ritual, sense, and other considerations as to repeated passages to decide relative dates.

v1.c8.15

³ Keith, *JRAS.* 1906, pp. 486–90, 718–22; 1912, pp. 726–9.

v1.c8.16

⁴ Hopkins, *JAOS.* xix. 19; cf. Keith, *CHI.* i. 80 ff.

v1.c8.17

If we cannot hope to reach any assured results as regards the different strata in the Rigveda itself, it remains to be seen what date can be ascribed to the Rigveda as a whole. The Saṁhitā is absolutely lacking in reference to any historical event which we can date. It had indeed been sought time after time to demonstrate the contrary, but no such attempt has yet approached plausibility. Ludwig⁵ in an elaborate examination of the question decided that from the mention of two eclipses in the Rigveda could be deduced a date of the eleventh century B. C. for the hymns in which these phenomena were mentioned, but this suggestion has been totally disproved by Whitney.¹ An alleged reference to the capture of Babylon by Aryan tribes which might be brought into connexion with the advent of the Kassite dynasty at Babylon in the eighteenth century B. C. is a wild guess of Brunnhofer,² which it is quite impossible seriously to consider. Much more substantial are the arguments adduced by Prof. Jacobi ³ who sees traces of evidence that the Rigveda goes back as far as the third millennium B. C. He thinks that the Rigveda shows that the winter solstice took place in the month Phālguna, and on the ground of the precession of the equinoxes this must mean that the observation thus recorded was made in the third millennium B. C. This view, which rests on the interpretation of a very doubtful passage in the Rigveda,⁴ he supports ⁵ by the fact that in the Gṛhya Sūtras, or manuals of domestic ritual, of much later date, the ceremonial of the wedding includes an injunction to the wife to look at the star called Dhruva, ‘fixed’, and this can only have originated at the time when *a Draconis* was in the vicinity of the pole, there being no other star which could be called fixed at any period coincident with the probable age of the Rigveda: further he contends that the fact that Kṛttikās, the Pleiades, are placed at the head of the list of twenty-seven or twenty-eight Nakṣatras, ‘lunar mansions,’ in the Yajurveda and Atharvaveda Saṁhitās means that Kṛttikās marked the vernal equinox when the list was compiled, and this date fell in the third millennium B. C. The first of these arguments seems clearly to be based on a misunderstanding of the Rigvedic passage in question;⁶ the argument from the pole star assumes an accuracy in the demands of the primitive Indian wedding ritual which is wholly unnatural; and the assumption that the Kṛttikās coincided with the vernal equinox is most improbable, if we are to regard the Nakṣatras as an Indian invention, since the equinoxes play otherwise no part in early Indian ideas, and if, as is far more probable, the Nakṣatras were borrowed from some other nation, then the period when Kṛttikās were chosen as the head is without relevance to the date of Indian literature.⁷

v1.c8.18

⁵ *Proc. Bohem. Acad.* 1885.

v1.c8.19

¹ JAOS. xiii. pp. lxi–lxvi.

v1.c8.20

² *Iran und Turan*, p. 221.

v1.c8.21

³ *Festgruss an Roth*, pp. 68 ff.; GN. 1894, p. 110; ZDMG. xlix. 218 ff.; l. 69 ff.; JRAS. 1909, pp. 721–6; 1910, pp. 456–64.

v1.c8.22

⁴ x. 85. 13; AV. xiv. 1. 13.

v1.c8.23

⁵ A somewhat similar view is found in B. G. Tilak’s *The Orion* (1893) and *The Arctic Home in the Vedas*. Cf. Bühler, IA. xxiii. 238 ff. Contrast A. C. Das, *Rig-Vedic India*, i. 356 ff.

v1.c8.24

⁶ The argument involves (1) the deduction from RV. vii. 103. 9 that the year began with the summer solstice, and (2) from x. 85. 13 that the marriage of the sun in the Phalgunis must fall at the beginning of the year, i. e. the summer solstice. Both views are most implausible; in vii. 103. 9 that *dvādaçásya* means ‘year’ is practically certain, and thus ruins the whole structure of conjecture.

v1.c8.25

⁷ Oldenberg, ZDMG. xlviii. 629 ff.; xlix. 470 ff.; l. 450 ff.; JRAS. 1909, pp. 1090–5; GN. 1909, pp. 544 ff.; Thibaut, IA. xxiv. 85 ff.; Whitney, JAOS. xvi. pp. lxxxi ff.; Keith, JRAS. 1909, pp. 1095–1100; 1910, pp. 465–8; Macdonell and Keith, *Vedic Index*, i. 420–31; Keith, *Taittirīya Saṁhitā*, i. pp. clix ff.; JRAS. 1917, pp. 135 ff.; Lehmann-Haupt, ZDMG. lxiii. 717.

v1.c8.26

We are compelled therefore to content ourselves in the main with internal evidence. There is, however, one point of interest arising from the discoveries at Boghaz-Köi,¹ where among gods invoked by the King of the Mitanni are found names suggestive of the gods Mitra, Varuṇa, Indra, and the Nāsatyas, i. e. the two Açvins, who often bear that name or epithet in the Rigveda. The existence of these gods seems, therefore, established for a period which may be placed about 1400 B.C., but unfortunately there is nothing in the record to show decisively whether these gods are to be regarded as the gods of an Aryan people, no clear separation of Iranian and Indian yet having taken place, or of the proto-Iranians, or of the proto-Indians. From the names of kings of the Mitanni preserved in the Tell-el-Amarna letters,² it has been deduced that there were proto-Iranian elements among the Mitanni, and this possibility is not to be denied, though it is at least certain that the people were not a pure Aryan race. But in view of its uncertain value no direct light can be thrown on the age of the Rigveda either in its earliest or its latest form. *A priori* it is clear that the gods must have existed before the hymns, and there is nothing special about the grouping of the gods as found at Boghaz-Köi which would justify us in holding that the pantheon had by that time assumed the definite form which it takes in the Rigveda, and that the Rigveda must then have existed. Still less importance attaches to the occurrence of a name like Šuriaš (perhaps Sūrya, the sun) in Kassite records, which leads Meyer to the conclusion that the Kaššū were originally settled in Media and driven west by Aryan tribes.¹

v1.c8.27

¹ Winckler, MDOG. Dec. 1907; Jacobi JRAS. 1909, pp. 721–6; Meyer, SBA. 1908, pp. 14 ff.; KZ. xlii. 16 ff.; *Gesch. des Alt.*³ II. i. p. 652; Keith, *Bhandarkar Comm. Volume*, pp. 81–92; Winternitz, *Gesch. der ind. Lit.* iii. 621 f.

v1.c8.28

² Bloomfield, AJP. xxv. 8; Hall, *Anc. Hist. of Near East*, pp. 201, 331. According to Winckler (OL. xiii. 291 ff.) the Aryan element bore the name *Charri*; the Susian version of Darius’s inscriptions has *Harriya* for Aryan; their followers are named *marianni*, in which may be seen the Vedic *marya*, with suffix *āna*; cf. Leumann, *Zur nordarischen Sprache und Literatur*, pp. 5 ff. The theory is carefully criticized by W. E. Clark, *Am. Journ. Sem. Lang.* xxxiii. 261–82. Since then much evidence has been accumulated, without decisive result. Hrozný (*Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi und Völker und Sprachen des alten Chatti-Landes*), agreeing in considerable measure with E. Forrer, *Die acht Sprachen der Boghazköi-Inschriften* (1919), holds that the Chatti were non-Indo-Europeans ruled by persons of quasi-Indo-European origin, speaking a *centum* language, while the *Charri* were also non-European under rulers speaking a *satem* language of Indian, not Iranian type (Jensen, *Indische Zahlwörter in keilschrifthittitischen Texten*, Berlin, 1919). The efforts from the numerals and names to establish Indian rulers, as opposed to Iranian or Aryan, are not convincing, as we simply have no evidence of early Iranian, and the process of restoring the Avesta to its true form, undertaken by Andreas and Wackernagel, is still unfinished. The form Assara Mazāš of Assurbanipal’s record, pointing to a much earlier borrowing, possibly during the Kassite dominion in Babylon, is clearly not Indian, and, while it may be Aryan, it is possible that it is proto-Iranian; cf. Hommel, PSBA. 1899, pp. 127, 138 f.; *Geographie und Geschichte des alten Orients*, p. 204; Moulton, *Early Zoroastrianism*, pp. 423 f.; Konow, JRAS. 1911, pp. 41 ff., argues that the Mitanni names are early Iranian. Cf. CAH. i. 311 f., 469, 553; Forrer, ZDMG. lxxvi. 250 ff.

v1.c8.29

¹ In *CHI.* i. 65 ff. the case for a western home of the Indo-Europeans is stated by Dr. P. Giles, who would clearly place the invasion of India after 1500 B. C. The eastern theory is defended by Feist, *Indogermanen und Germanen* (1919). Carnoy (*Les Indo-Européens*, pp. 55 ff.) decides for the Dnieper region. On Kassite names see Bloomfield, *AJP.* xxv. 1–14. The western home is supported by von Schroeder, *Arische Religion*, i. 214 ff. Hirt (*Die Indo-germanen*, i. 22) places the migrations late. Cf. Ipsen, *IF.* xli. 174 ff.

v1.c8.30

The internal evidence is more satisfactory, if less definite. It is practically certain that the Rigveda was to all intents and purposes complete before the other Saṁhitās came into being, and it is certainly anterior to the whole of the other literature of India, which presupposes it and takes it as given. With this fact accords its language, which is much more archaic than the language of the other early literature of India, and its metre, which has only emerged from the simplest form in which the number of syllables in each line was the sole mark of differentiation of verse from prose. For reasons which are given in the next chapter it is impossible to suppose that the later Saṁhitās date substantially if at all after 800 B. C., and this may probably be taken as the lowest possible date for the completion of the Rigveda. The real difficulty arises in deciding how much farther back the collection is to be carried, and in this regard it is probably necessary to beware of exaggeration.² There are many references in the Rigveda to former poets, and unquestionably, as we have seen, there was a distinct development of language and thought during the period of its production. But to allow too extended a time for the process of development and decline—for it is clear that the end of the period saw the passing from favour of original composition of hymns—is unnecessary, and there are two distinct grounds against adopting any such view. In the first place the poets never attain any very great command of their material, whether in language or metre, though in certain cases poetic results are attained by simple means.³ To the end the structure of the sentences remains naïve and simple, and, when the poet seeks to compass more elaborate thought, his power of expression seriously fails him : it can hardly be supposed that in a period of many centuries the Vedic poet's control over his instruments of expression would not have risen superior to the difficulties which faced him. In the second place, if the Rigveda is put as far back as 1500 B. C., it becomes very difficult to explain the extremely close parallelism between the speech of the Avesta and that of the Rigveda, especially if the traditional date (660–583 b.c.) of Zoroaster is accepted.¹ It is possible to diminish the force of this objection by postulating an earlier epoch for Zoroaster ;² but, even so, it is very doubtful whether the prophet can be carried far enough back to make any earlier date than 1200 b.c. or 1300 b.c.³ for the Rigveda reasonably probable. If we seek to ascribe a higher date than this, we must recognize that we are dealing with conjectures for which no very substantial evidence can be adduced.

v1.c8.31

² Bloomfield (*Religion of the Veda*, p. 20) prefers 2000 B. C. for the beginnings. But in *Rig-Veda Repetitions* (pp. 20, 21) he stresses the absence of archetype hymns and the epigonal character of the collection (cf. *JAOS.* xxix. 287), and in the earlier work he accepts 1600 B. C. in lieu of 1400 B. C. as the Mitanni date.

v1.c8.32

³ Macdonell, *Hymns from the Rigveda* (1922), pp. 17 f.

v1.c8.33

¹ Jackson, *Zoroaster*, pp. 150 ff.; Prášek, *Gesch. der Meder*, i. 204 ff.; West, *SBE.* xlvii. p. xxviii; cf. Hertel, *IIQ.* i. 7 ff.

v1.c8.34

² Moulton, *Early Zoroastrianism*, p. 18; Geldner, *Enc. Brit.* xxi. 246; xxviii. 1041; Bartholomae, *Altir. Wörterbuch*, p. 1675; Keith, *JRAS.* 1915, pp. 798, 799; Peters, *JAOS.* xxxi. 378; Jackson, *CHI.* i. 323.

v1.c8.35

³ Macdonell, *Hymns from the Rigveda*, p. 7.

v1.c8.36

A very serious difficulty, it must be added, presents itself in the way of the early dating of the Rigveda in the shape of the fact that it seems very dubious whether we can place at all early the period of the dispersal of the Indo-Europeans or of the Indo-Iranians. If the Rigveda belongs to even 2000 b.c. we must assume that the Indo-Iranians parted at some date decidedly before that epoch, and there certainly seems every reason, arguing from general probabilities, not to place the entrance of the Aryans into India substantially before 1600 b.c.,⁴ and the process was probably one of long duration and slow accomplishment.

v1.c8.37

⁴ Cf. Morgan, *Les premières civilisations*, pp. 264 ff., 314; J. L. Myres, *The Dawn of History*, pp. 189 ff.; Kennedy, *JRAS.* 1909, p. 1119.

v1.c8.38

A proof of the long connexion of the Indians and the Iranians before the latter settled definitely in India is seen by Hillebrandt⁵ in certain names in the Rigveda, which incidentally in this view aid us in assigning an earlier date to certain hymns at least of the sixth book, composed in Arachosia. This view involves the identification of the Paṇis not with mythological figures but with the Parnians, of the name Pārthava with the Parthians, the Dāsas with the Dahae, the river Sarasvatī with the Iranian Harahvaitī, the Hariyūpīyā with the Iryāb or Haliāb, a tributary of the Krumu, and the Ārjīkīya with a name connected with Arsakes, while Bṛbu Takṣan, the enemy of the Paṇis, is brought into connexion with the later city of Takṣaçīlā, which may represent an eastern settlement of a tribe originally situated further to the west. Against this view, however, there are two serious objections. The identifications are all of the most dubious character,⁶ and, even if they were genuine, it would be difficult to make out any chronological result from them, seeing that other possibly Iranian names occur in other books of the Rigveda, such as Sṛñjaya and Pārāvata in several books, Dṛbhīka in book ii, Sṛbinda in viii,⁷ Parçu and Tirindira in viii.

v1.c8.39

⁵ *Ved. Myth.* i. 83 ff.; iii. 268; (Kl. Ausg.), pp. 95, 114, 191 f.; *GGA.* 1894, pp. 648 ff.

v1.c8.40

⁶ See Macdonell and Keith, *Vedic Index*, i. 29, 349, 357, 450, 504 f., 518 f., 521 f.; ii. 470; Keith, *CHI.* i. 86 f. The obvious possibilities of mere parallelism of name between India and Iran seem sometimes ignored (cf. Jackson, *CHI.* i. 322). Parçavas is certainly not a proper name in x. 33. 2.

v1.c8.41

⁷ Brunnhofer, *Iran und Turan*, p. 122.

v1.c8.42

It is, however, an interesting question¹ how far there can be traced in the Rigveda evidence of closer connexions with Iran on the part of some of the families of poets, even if, as is doubtless proper, we reject the suggestions of Hillebrandt which would make certain of the hymns of the Rigveda (book vi) a product of the time when the seers dwelt beyond Indian limits proper. Here again, however, we must be contented in large measure with a negative result. Thus it has been suggested that we are to see special closeness of connexion in the case of book viii, on the strength of the occurrence of such names as the Gomatī, Suvāstu, Asiknī, Paruṣṇī, and the hostile aspect in which the Gandharva is viewed,² contrary to the usual honourable position occupied by that spirit. Ārjīka or Ārjīkīya is also cited as pointing to some Iranian locality. This, however, as has been said, is uncertain,³ and the most certain indication of Iranian influence, the form *titaü* with an unparalleled hiatus,⁴ is found in book x, other alleged instances of such influence being most dubious.

v1.c8.43

¹ Cf. Hillebrandt, *Aus alten und Neuindien* (1922), pp. 8 ff.; Hopkins, *JAOS.* xvii. 73 ff. See also below, Part II, Chap. 15, § 1 as to Asura.

v1.c8.44

² RV. viii. 1. 11. In Iran his parallel is a demon, but the suggestion is problematic.

v1.c8.45

³ Macdonell and Keith, *Vedic Index*, i. 62 f.; Stein, *Bhandarkar Comm. Vol.*, p. 27.

v1.c8.46

⁴ Cf. Wackernagel, *Altind. Gramm.* i. § 37. 1 (*b*).

v1.c8.47

It may, however, be noted that from the Iranian side the suggestion has been made that the Tīr Yašt represents an Indian phenomenon, the breaking of the south-west monsoon, which has no Iranian parallel. Hope Moulton⁵ connected this view with the appearance of gods, whom he regarded as Indian, among the Mitanni, thus arriving at the conjecture of a movement back out of India on the part of tribes which had become dissatisfied with conditions there, but carried traditions with them. Indo-Iranian relations might account for the phenomenon adequately, but the whole matter is too conjectural to yield any assured result.

v1.c8.48

⁵ *Early Zoroastrianism*, pp. 25 f., 436 f.

v1.c8.49

The Rigveda is not, therefore, among the oldest literary monuments of the world viewed merely from the point of date, but its extent, which is comparable with that of the *Iliad* and the *Odyssey* put together, and the practically exclusively religious character of its contents, make it unique in its revelation of the religion of the Vedic tribes. Of the condition of life of these tribes comparatively little is made known to us, but there is enough to show that the people were divided up among small kingdoms, under hereditary princes, often engaged in war among themselves and still more often involved in conflicts with the ‘dark skins’, over whom they seem normally to have been victorious, perhaps as a result of the body armour which they wore, and the spears and battle-axes of metal—copper, or later iron—which, with the bow, formed their chief weapons in war. They were not merely a pastoral but also an agricultural people, but there is no clear trace of a town life: the forts, which both they and the aborigines owned, were doubtless nothing more than places of refuge, with ramparts of mud or wood, used both in time of war and in time of flood.¹ The richness in gold, which is characteristic of the age, may be compared with the wealth of the Aegean civilization of Crete, but there is no trace of the artistic spirit of the Aegean pre-Hellenic people. Nor is there any sign that large kingdoms had yet appeared: confederations of tribes, such as that of the famous five peoples, Anus, Pūrus, Druhyus, Turvaças, and Yadus, might exist, and we hear even of a battle of ten kings, but these were clearly not lasting federations, but loose unions for war. On the other hand a great homogeneity of culture and religion among the tribes seems to result from the evidence of the Rigveda and to attest the definite and distinctive character of the Vedic people as distinct from the tribes of aborigines.²

v1.c8.50

¹ Cf. Feist, *Kultur der Indogermanen*, pp. 144-6; von Schroeder, *Arische Religion*, i. 247; Macdonell and Keith, *Vedic Index*, i. 539 f.; Hopkins, *Trans. Conn. Acad.* xv. 32.

v1.c8.51

² Zimmer, *Altindisches Leben* (1879); Macdonell and Keith, *Vedic Index* (1912); Keith, *CHI.* i. 77 ff.; Kennedy, *JRAS.* 1919, pp. 493 ff.; 1920, pp. 31 ff.

v1.c8.52

The language of the Veda is essentially akin to Iranian as seen in the Avesta, and more remotely to the other tongues which make up the Indo-European family. From this fact, and from the picture of strife against peoples of dark colour in the Rigveda,³ has been deduced the theory that the Vedic Indians formed a body of invading tribes which broke into India from the north-west and carried with them a distinctive culture and religion, which they developed in a special manner under the influence of the new climatic conditions in which they found themselves in Northern India, and of intermixture of blood through marriage with the aboriginal population. Of the latter fact there are probably clear traces already in the language of the Rigveda, which contains in the cerebral letters a series in the main unknown to other cognate languages and most plausibly⁴ to be ascribed to the deterioration of sounds in the mouths of generations of mixed blood. Moreover, all analogy is distinctly in favour of an early process of admixture. Complete destruction by invaders of pre-existing peoples is a comparatively rare phenomenon and connotes a bloodthirsty spirit among the invaders which is not suggested by anything in the Rigveda.

First 119 of 2,692 passages. Read on

Linked texts (33)