The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c27.s3.25

v1.c27.s3.25

The wearing of the skin of an ass or of a dog, which were both unclean animals ²—that is to say, animals of a peculiar nature—cannot be regarded as explained by the theory of Oldenberg, even if it could be given credence to any extent. The case of the student is here the most interesting, as it involves a sacrifice, and has the most primitive appearance: the dog was clearly in some ways a peculiar beast: nothing but the utmost hunger would drive a man to eat a dog:³ it is therefore quite possible that the wearing of the skin has no reference to any sacrifice, and the wearing of the ass-skin by the murderer may easily be due to the fact that the practice was customary in other cases. In that of the Brahmacārin the most obvious and simple explanation of the rite is that the virility of the ass ⁴ is its most marked feature, that the wearing of the skin and the eating of the special part assigned to the student were intended to replace the manhood expended improperly. The fact that the offering was made to Nirṛti then ceases to stand in special relation to the goddess, as connected with the ass: Nirṛti is the personification of dissolution: to her an offer might properly then be made in the circumstances, and, as often, we find the offering intermingled with the magic rite, as in the case of the offering to Varuṇa at the Varuṇapraghāsas.⁵ The wearing of the skin might then easily degenerate into an intimation of the sinfulness of the wearer, as it certainly was recognized in this use in the Sūtras, but that this idea is primitive is absurd. The case of the man who has abandoned his wife is probably the same: the magic power of the skin is to give him virility, and induce him to perform his duty which he has abandoned: it must be remembered that, as with most primitive peoples, and in the Roman Catholic faith of the present day, cohabitation with his wife is a man's bounden duty, an idea reflected in various Indian stories.