The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c16.s6.16

v1.c16.s6.16

It is a different matter with the question of the essential nature of the two gods: while that is obscure, some effort to elucidate it is made requisite by the abundance of the material. In the first place, however, it is important to note that in part at least the Indo-European character of the deities is beyond all reasonable doubt:¹ there is a very famous Lettish myth which shows us the two sons—or one son—of a god who are helpers in time of need and who come riding on their steeds to woo the daughter of the sun for themselves or for the moon, just as in the Rigveda the Açvins are both wooers of the sun-maiden for themselves and also for Soma, the moon. Here the god or gods are also described as the morning star. In the Greek myth of the Dioskouroi and their relation to Helene we have a clear variant of the legend, and the Dioskouroi are of course *par excellence* the saviours of men, especially at sea.² Moreover, the evidence of Boghaz-Köi, as we have seen, proves the early existence of the Nāsatyas,³ and makes it most probable that the Avesta knew them; before the reform of Zoroaster the Nāoṅhaithya must have been great gods. This fact explains in great measure the obscurity of the mythic conception of the gods; they have in the course of transmission attained greater personality, and therefore the natural substratum of the gods is hard to recognize.