The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c17.s1.22

v1.c17.s1.22

In the view of Oldenberg² the use of the terms mountain and streams is proof that in the Vedic period the poets conceived the deed of Indra as the setting forth from mountains on earth of streams terrestrial, the invaluable waters of the Punjab: he grants that in the oldest period the myth was one of the thunderstorm, the fall of rain, and the coming of the light.¹ But, while he admits that this view of the myth was perfectly well known to Yāska and to the later literature, he denies that it was appreciated by the Vedic poets. This is, however, difficult to accept: the arguments adduced for it are not by any means conclusive. The absence of direct mention normally—occasionally there is such mention as Oldenberg admits—is due to the fact that the story is a myth; it has passed the stage when it is merely a description of phenomenon, and it is not only a myth but a very popular myth. Moreover, it is impossible to accept the view that Vajra, the name of the bolt, is not the thunderbolt, which it is throughout the Vedic literature, often in quite clear fashion. The comparison of mountains with clouds is natural and easy: the mountains are the clouds, which before the storm hang in heavy darkness refusing to yield the rain: the storm comes, the lightning bursts forth, the rain falls, and the sun shines out. A different view is suggested by the theory of Hillebrandt² which sees in the story of the contest with Vṛtra, not the storm-god bringing down the rain to earth, but the defeating of a serpent demon, the glacier which with the winter cold holds fast the waters in ice.³ The suggestion is brilliant and attractive, and, if such a glacial myth existed, it would clearly be natural to find its remnants in the tale of Vṛtra, but the evidence which can be adduced from the language of the Rigveda is of the most inadequate nature to prove the thesis desired.