The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c23.s1.13

v1.c23.s1.13

Hillebrandt¹ has recently opposed the prevalent doctrine, and asserted the opinion that the difference of view is due to religious relations with the early Iranians before the reform of Zoroaster, but after the period of the Rigveda in its main portions. He points out that the real cleavage in view is considerable: that the fall of the Nāsatya, Indra, Vāta, and Çarva to be demons as Nā̊ṅhaithya, Indra, Vātō, and Çauru (Saurva) is significant; that the Vedic Kavis and the Uçij family of priests fell in rank; and that there is no trace of the gradual change of sense, which would be expected, if the prevailing view were correct. He also points to the fact that among the names of Asuras, who appear in the accounts of the Brāhmaṇas, there are some with an Iranian aspect: namely Çaṇḍa and Marka, the latter being Avestan Mahrka,² Kāvya Uçanā, who is comparable with Kai Kāōs, Prahrāda Kāyādhava,³ perhaps Avestan Kayadha, and Sṛma,⁴ Iranian Salm, son of Thraētaona. The evidence is, however, clearly inadequate to prove the thesis, and the efforts of Hillebrandt to show that in the Rigveda occur names of Persian princes who patronized the singers, a fact which would indicate the possibility of close intercourse during the late Rigveda period natural, must be definitely taken to have failed to produce conviction.⁵