The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c24.23

v1.c24.23

It is by no means certain exactly in what way the conception of the connexion of Varuṇa with sin sprang into such prominence, if we assume, as we must in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the conception of sin as punished by Varuṇa is an Aryan one, and not a conception borrowed from a Semitic race. It is possible that the point of contact lay in the fact that the disease of dropsy by its accumulation of fluid suggested the action of the god who is always connected with the waters: there seems every reason to suppose that the connexion of the god and that disease is as early as anything else in this regard. If, therefore, the disease became associated with the action of the god, it may have been an easy step to evolve the view that the disease was a punishment for sin, for the idea of Varuṇa as the overseer of moral order may have been produced at a comparatively early date from the kindred conception that the order of the universe is particularly his care. This moral character of Varuṇa is expressed repeatedly in the most emphatic manner.¹ Mitra and he are barriers furnished with many fetters against falsehood, his fetters are cast threefold and sevenfold, snaring the man who tells lies, he is a dispeller, hater, and punisher of falsehood, and afflicts with disease those who are sinful. But, on the other hand, stress is laid also on the mercy of the god: he releases from sins committed by men and by their fathers also: the prayer of men who day by day trangress his ordinances, through thoughtlessness and through the sinful nature of man, is efficacious to secure forgiveness. The poet in one hymn² represents in an effective and interesting way the feeling of the sinner, who approaches the god in full consciousness that he or his fathers has sinned against him, but who urges as excuse lack of thought, passion, and other causes, wine, dice, anger, slumber, and begs for forgiveness and to be set free from the fetters in which he is bound. It is, of course, possible to exaggerate the moral character of this confession of sin: the poet is not a prophet, and he takes his position with a calm which is not expressive of any deep movement of repentance or consciousness of sin,³ but the attitude is clearly moral; the punishment is admitted to be just, repentance is expressed, and the god is asked to forgive. In another hymn,⁴ perhaps of the same authorship, we have a striking expression; the poet reflects on his former companionship with the god, when Varuṇa and he sailed on a ship together in Varuṇa's heaven, and the god made him to be a seer; if he has sinned against the god, still as his true friend he begs for forgiveness. In yet another¹ the sinner presents himself as tottering along, blown out like an inflated skin, athirst in the midst of the waters, and begs pardon for the sins he has committed whether from lack of thought or feebleness of will. Elsewhere the sinner admits violating day by day the laws of Varuṇa or of the gods.² Passages such as these, with admission of sin committed, must be put beside the emphatic assertion of the omniscience of Varuṇa which is found in a hymn of the Atharvaveda,³ and which asserts that he is present everywhere; when two men are together Varuṇa is present as third: he numbers the winkings of the eyes of men: if a man should flee far beyond the heavens, yet he would not be free from Varuṇa who has a thousand spies, and who knows all things. There should also be added the emphasis which is laid on the conception of Ṛta as moral and not merely a physical or a sacrificial law of order: when Yamī urges Yama⁴ to marry her despite the guilt of incest which thus would arise, he replies that the action is contrary to Ṛta, which is thus conceived as a firm and abiding principle binding on man.