The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c18.s3.33

v1.c18.s3.33

In opposition to this theory Hillebrandt¹ insists that the moon nature of Soma exists throughout: that the deity is the moon *sans phrase*, but that in the moon there is an ambrosia which is eaten by the gods in heaven and in the form of the Soma plant is eaten by the men on earth, who in eating it thus, like the gods, partake of the substance of the moon. This god, he argues, was the greatest and most popular of all Vedic gods, and ranked even above Indra and far above the sun gods. He therefore treats, among others, Bṛhaspati as a moon god. The most serious objection to this view is the fact that, while in the later literature² the nature of Soma as the moon is apparent on every hand, in the Rigveda it can only be restored by conjecture, and there is a definite assertion in one hymn that the conception of Soma as the moon is mythic and known to the Brahmans only. Again, in the vast majority of passages, it is perfectly plain that the Soma plant and its qualities are referred to. If we could show *ab extra* that the plant is also the moon, this would not be a fatal objection to the theory of Hillebrandt, but, as this cannot be done, and as the ordinary view that the plant is deified and made into a great god is adequate to account for the facts, it is an offence against sound principles of method to adopt any other theory.