The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c16.s2.51

v1.c16.s2.51

Yet another view of the position of Varuṇa and Mitra is that presented by E. Meyer.³ He sees in them later productions of the religious conception: while Indra, if not in name, at least in essence, is an Indo-European god, being really one aspect of the sky god, Varuṇa and Mitra are essentially products of the Indo-Iranian period of religious thought, and the Asuras never are on the same level with the Devas: in India for a time, that is in the period of the Rigveda, they seem to have been to some extent recognized as at least equal with the Devas, and Varuṇa actually in some circles ranked above Indra, but this condition did not last, and, while in the case of Iran the Zoroastrian reform developed the essential character of the Asuras and made the Daēvas demons, in India the Asuras sank to demons, and Varuṇa was relegated to the position of lord of the sea, while Mitra was little but a name. The origin of the deities he traces in moral, not natural concepts, the nature connexion of the gods being due to the inability of primitive thought to remain at the high pitch of moral conception. Mitra is primarily⁴ the lord of the contract, that between individual men no less than that between clans and states, while Varuṇa is the god of the oath.⁵ Hence perhaps Varuṇa is to be deemed to have been connected with the ocean surrounding the world, by which, as in the case of the Styx in Greek religion, oaths might be taken, and from this connexion with water developed his connexion with the waters of the heaven, the earth, and the ocean alike. But from their moral position the two gods are both essentially celestial, Mitra being especially connected in thought with the sun, while Varuṇa was less definitely restricted in his physical range. The possibility of connexion between Varuṇa and Ouranos Meyer naturally denies.¹