Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vedic Mythology c3: I. Introduction

Vedic Mythology c3

Language
English

Contents

I. Introduction

c3.1

§ 1. Religion and mythology. — Religion in its widest sense includes on the one hand the conception which men entertain of the divine or supernatural powers and, on the other, that sense of the dependence of human welfare on those powers which finds its expression in various forms of worship. Mythology is connected with the former side of religion as furnishing the whole body of myths or stories which are told about gods and heroes and which describe their character and origin, their actions and surroundings. Such myths have their source in the attempt of the human mind, in a primitive and unscientific age, to explain the various forces and phenomena of nature with which man is confronted. They represent in fact the conjectural science of a primitive mental condition. For statements which to the highly civilised mind would be merely metaphorical, amount in that early stage to explanations of the phenomena observed. The intellectual difficulties raised by the course of the heavenly bodies, by the incidents of the thunderstorm, by reflexions on the origin and constitution of the outer world, here receive their answers in the form of stories. The basis of these myths is the primitive attitude of mind which regards all nature as an aggregate of animated entities. A myth actually arises when the imagination interprets a natural event as the action of a personified being resembling the human agent. Thus the observation that the moon follows the sun without overtaking it, would have been transformed into a myth by describing the former as a maiden following a man by whom she is rejected. Such an original myth enters on the further stage of poetical embellishment, as soon as it becomes the property of people endowed with creative imagination. Various traits are now added according to the individual fancy of the narrator, as the story passes from mouth to mouth. The natural phenomenon begins to fade out of the picture as its place is taken by a detailed representation of human passions. When the natural basis of the tale is forgotten, new touches totally unconnected with its original significance may be added or even transferred from other myths. When met with at a late stage of its development, a myth may be so far overgrown with secondary accretions unconnected with its original form, that its analysis may be extremely difficult or even impossible. Thus it would be hard indeed to discover the primary naturalistic elements in the characters or actions of the Hellenic gods, if we knew only the highly anthropomorphic deities in the plays of Euripides.

c3.2

B. Delbrück, ZVP. 1865, pp. 266–99; Kuhn, Über Entwicklungsstufen der Mythenbildung, Berliner Ak. der Wissenschaften 1873, pp. 123–51; Max Müller, Comparative Mythology. Oxford Essays. II; Philosophy of Mythology. Selected

c3.3

Essays. 1; Chips from a German Workship, IV², 155—201; Physical Religion 276—8; Schwartz, Der Ursprung der Mythologie; Mannhardt, Antike Wald- und Feldkulte, Berlin 1871, Preface; Müllenhoff in preface to Mannhardt's Mythologische Forschungen, Strassburg 1884; Lang, Mythology. Encyclopaedia Britannica; Gruppe, Die griechischen Culte und Mythen. Introduction; Bloomfield, JAOS. XV, 135—6; F. B. Jevons, Mythology. Chambers' Encyclopaedia; Introduction to the History of Religion, London 1896, pp. 23. 32. 249—69.

§ 2. Characteristics of Vedic Mythology

c3.s1.1

Vedic mythology occupies a very important position in the study of the history of religions. Its oldest source presents to us an earlier stage in the evolution of beliefs based on the personification and worship of natural phenomena, than any other literary monument of the world. To this oldest phase can be traced by uninterrupted development the germs of the religious beliefs of the great majority of the modern Indians, the only branch of the Indo-European race in which its original nature worship has not been entirely supplanted many centuries ago by a foreign monotheistic faith. The earliest stage of Vedic mythology is not so primitive as was at one time supposed¹, but it is sufficiently primitive to enable us to see clearly enough the process of personification by which natural phenomena developed into gods, a process not apparent in other literatures. The mythology, no less than the language, is still transparent enough in many cases to show the connexion both of the god and his name with a physical basis; nay, in several instances the anthropomorphism is only incipient. Thus *uṣas*, the dawn, is also a goddess wearing but a thin veil of personification; and when *agni*, fire, designates the god, the personality of the deity is thoroughly interpenetrated by the physical element.

c3.s1.2

The foundation on which Vedic mythology rests, is still the belief, surviving from a remote antiquity, that all the objects and phenomena of nature with which man is surrounded, are animate and divine. Everything that impressed the soul with awe or was regarded as capable of exercising a good or evil influence on man, might in the Vedic age still become a direct object not only of adoration but of prayer. Heaven, earth, mountains, rivers, plants might be supplicated as divine powers; the horse, the cow, the bird of omen, and other animals might be invoked; even objects fashioned by the hand of man, weapons, the war-car, the drum, the plough, as well as ritual implements, such as the pressing-stones and the sacrificial post, might be adored.

c3.s1.3

This lower form of worship, however, occupies but a small space in Vedic religion. The true gods of the Veda are glorified human beings, inspired with human motives and passions, born like men, but immortal. They are almost without exception the deified representatives of the phenomena or agencies of nature². The degree of anthropomorphism to which they have attained, however, varies considerably. When the name of the god is the same as that of his natural basis, the personification has not advanced beyond the rudimentary stage. Such is the case with Dyaus, Heaven, Pṛthivī, Earth, Sūrya, Sun, Uṣas, Dawn, whose names represent the double character of natural phenomena and of the persons presiding over them. Similarly in the case of the two great ritual deities, Agni and Soma, the personifying imagination is held in check by the visible and tangible character of the element of fire and the sacrificial draught, called by the same names, of which they are the divine embodiments. When the name of the deity is different from that of the physical substrate, he tends to become dissociated from the latter, the anthropomorphism being then more developed. Thus the Maruts or Storm-gods are farther removed from their origin than Vāyu, Wind, though the Vedic poets are still conscious of the connexion. Finally, when in addition to the difference in name, the conception of a god dates from a pre-Vedic period, the severance may have become complete. Such is the case with Varuṇa, in whom the connexion can only be inferred from mythological traits surviving from an earlier age. The process of abstraction has here proceeded so far, that Varuṇa's character resembles that of the divine ruler in a monotheistic belief of an exalted type. Personification has, however, nowhere in Vedic mythology attained to the individualized anthropomorphism characteristic of the Hellenic gods. The Vedic deities have but very few distinguishing features, while many attributes and powers are shared by all alike. This is partly due to the fact that the departments of nature which they represent have often much in common, while their anthropomorphism is comparatively undeveloped. Thus the activity of a thunder-god, of the fire-god in his lightning form, and of the storm-gods might easily be described in similar language, their main function in the eyes of the Vedic poets being the discharge of rain. Again, it cannot be doubted that various Vedic deities have started from the same source³, but have become differentiated by an appellative denoting a particular attribute having gradually assumed an independent character. Such is the case with the solar gods. There is, moreover, often a want of clearness in the statements of the Vedic poets about the deeds of the gods; for owing to the character of the literature, myths are not related but only alluded to. Nor can thorough consistency be expected in such mythological allusions when it is remembered that they are made by a number of different poets, whose productions extend over a prolonged literary period.

c3.s1.4

¹ BRI. XIII ff.; P. v. BRADKE, Dyaus Asura, Halle 1885, 2—11; ZDMG. 40, 670.

c3.s1.5

² ORV. 591—4.

c3.s1.6

³ L. v. SCHROEDER, WZKM. 9, 125—6; cp. BRI. 25.

c3.s1.7

Works on Vedic Mythology in general: R. ROTH, Die höchsten Götter der arischen Völker, ZDMG. 6, 67—77; 7, 607; BÖHTLINGK and ROTH, Sanskritwörterbuch, 7 vols., St. Petersburg 1852—75; J. MUIR, Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions, 5 vols., especially vols. 4^2 revised (1873) and 5^3 (1884); GRASSMANN, Wörterbuch zum Ṛig-Veda, Leipzig 1873; Ṛig-Veda übersetzt und mit kritischen und erläuternden Anmerkungen versehen, 2 vols., Leipzig 1876—7; W. D. WHITNEY, Oriental and Linguistic Studies, 2, 149 ff.; JAOS. 3, 291 ff. 331 ff.; P. WURM, Geschichte der indischen Religion, Basel 1874, pp. 21—54; A. BERGAIGNE, La Religion Védique d'après les Hymnes du Ṛigveda, 3 vols., Paris 1878—83; A. LUDWIG, Der Rigveda oder die heiligen Hymnen der Brāhmaṇa. Zum ersten Male vollständig ins Deutsche übersetzt. Mit Commentar und Einleitung. Prag, Wien, Leipzig 1876—88; F. MAX MÜLLER, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, London 1878; A. KAEGI, Der Rigveda, 2nd ed., Leipzig 1881; English Translation by R. ARROWSMITH, Boston 1886; A. BARTH, The Religions of India, London 1882; A. KUHN, Mythologische Studien. I^2: Die Herabkunft des Feuers und des Göttertranks, Gütersloh 1886; L. v. SCHRÖDER, Indiens Litteratur und Kultur, Leipzig 1887, pp. 45—145; P. D. CHANTEPIE DE LA SAUSSAYE, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, Freiburg i. B., 1887, 1, pp. 346—69; PISCHEL and GELDNER, Vedische Studien. vol. I, Stuttgart 1889, vol. II, part I 1892; A. HILLEBRANDT, Vedische Mythologie, vol. I, Soma und verwandte Götter, Breslau 1891; P. REGNAUD, Le Rig-Véda et les Origines de la Mythologie indo-européenne, Paris 1892 (the author follows principles of interpretation altogether opposed to those generally accepted). E. HARDY, Die Vedisch-brahmanische Periode der Religion des alten Indiens, Münster i. W. 1893; H. OLDENBERG, Die Religion des Veda, Berlin 1894; P. DEUSSEN, Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Religionen, vol. I, part 1, Philosophie des Veda bis auf die Upanishad's, Leipzig 1894; E. W. HOPKINS, The Religions of India, Boston and London 1895.

§ 3. Sources of Vedic Mythology

c3.s2.1

tendency to abstraction at the end of the Rigvedic period, exhibits in its latest book the beginnings of a kind of monotheism and even signs of pantheism. The hymns of this collection having been composed with a view to the sacrificial ritual, especially that of the Soma offering, furnish a disproportionate presentment of the mythological material of the age. The great gods who occupy an important position at the Soma sacrifice and in the worship of the wealthy, stand forth prominently; but the mythology connected with spirits, with witchcraft, with life after death, is almost a blank, for these spheres of belief have nothing to do with the poetry of the Soma rite. Moreover, while the character of the gods is very completely illustrated in these hymns, which are addressed to them and extol their attributes, their deeds, with the exception of their leading exploits, are far less definitely described. It is only natural that a collection of sacrificial poetry containing very little narrative matter, should supply but a scattered and fragmentary account of this side of mythology. The defective information given by the rest of the RV. regarding spirits, lesser demons, and the future life, is only very partially supplied by its latest book. Thus hardly any reference is made even here to the fate of the wicked after death. Beside and distinguished from the adoration of the gods, the worship of dead ancestors, as well as to some extent the deification of inanimate objects, finds a place in the religion of the Rigveda.

c3.s2.2

The Sāmaveda, containing but seventy-five verses which do not occur in the RV., is of no importance in the study of Vedic mythology.

c3.s2.3

The more popular material of the Atharvaveda deals mainly with domestic and magical rites. In the latter portion it is, along with the ritual text of the Kauśika sūtra, a mine of information in regard to the spirit and demon world. On this lower side of religion the Atharvaveda deals with notions of greater antiquity than those of the Rigveda. But on the higher side of religion it represents a more advanced stage. Individual gods exhibit a later phase of development and some new abstractions are deified, while the general character of the religion is pantheistic¹. Hymns in praise of individual gods are comparatively rare, while the simultaneous invocation of a number of deities, in which their essential nature is hardly touched upon, is characteristic. The deeds of the gods are extolled in the same stereotyped manner as in the RV.; and the AV. can hardly be said to supply any important mythological trait which is not to be found in the older collection.

c3.s2.4

The Yajurveda represents a still later stage. Its formulas being made for the ritual, are not directly addressed to the gods, who are but shadowy beings having only a very loose connexion with the sacrifice. The most salient features of the mythology of the Yajurveda are the existence of one chief god, Prajāpati, the greater importance of Viṣṇu, and the first appearance of an old god of the Rigveda under the new name of Śiva. Owing, however, to the subordinate position here occupied by the gods in comparison with the ritual, this Veda yields but little mythological material.

c3.s2.5

Between it and the Brāhmaṇas, the most important of which are the Aitareya and the Śatapatha, there is no essential difference. The sacrifice being the main object of interest, the individual traits of the gods have faded, the general character of certain deities has been modified, and the importance of others increased or reduced. Otherwise the pantheon of the Brāhmaṇas is much the same as that of the RV. and the AV., and the worship of inanimate objects is still recognized. The main difference between the mythology of the RV. and the Brāhmaṇas is the recognized position of Prajāpati or the Father-god as the chief deity in the latter. The pantheism of the Brāhmaṇas is, moreover, explicit. Thus Prajāpati is said to be the All (ŚB. 1, 3, 5¹⁰) or the All and everything (ŚB. 1, 6, 4²; 4, 5, 7²).

c3.s2.6

The gods having lost their distinctive features, there is apparent a tendency to divide them into groups. Thus it is characteristic of the period that the supernatural powers form the two hostile camps of the Devas or gods on the one hand and the Asuras or demons on the other. The gods are further divided into the three classes of the terrestrial Vasus, the aerial Rudras, and the celestial Ādityas (§ 45). The most significant group is the representative triad of Fire, Wind, and Sun. The formalism of these works further shows itself in the subdivision of individual deities by the personification of their various attributes. Thus they speak of an ‘Agni, lord of food’, ‘Agni, lord of prayer’ and so forth².

c3.s2.7

² BRI. 42; HRI. 182.

c3.s2.8

The Brāhmaṇas relate numerous myths in illustration of their main subject-matter. Some of these are not referred to in the Saṃhitās. But where they do occur in the earlier literature, they appear in the Brāhmaṇas only as developments of their older forms, and cannot be said to shed light on their original forms, but only serve as a link between the mythological creations of the oldest Vedic and of the post-Vedic periods.

c3.s2.9

¹ HRI. 153.

§ 4. Method to be Pursued

c3.s3.1

— Vedic mythology is the product of an age and a country, of social and climatic conditions far removed and widely differing from our own. We have, moreover, here to deal not with direct statements of fact, but with the imaginative creations of poets whose mental attitude towards nature was vastly different from that of the men of to-day. The difficulty involved in dealing with material so complex and representing so early a stage of thought, is further increased by the character of the poetry in which this thought is imbedded. There is thus perhaps no subject capable of scientific treatment, which, in addition to requiring a certain share of poetical insight, demands caution and sobriety of judgment more urgently. Yet the stringency of method which is clearly so necessary, has largely been lacking in the investigation of Vedic mythology. To this defect, no less than to the inherent obscurity of the material, are doubtless in considerable measure due the many and great divergences of opinion prevailing among Vedic scholars on a large number of important mythological questions.

c3.s3.2

In the earlier period of Vedic studies there was a tendency to begin research at the wrong end. The etymological equations of comparative mythology were then made the starting point. These identifications, though now mostly rejected, have continued to influence unduly the interpretation of the mythological creations of the Veda. But even apart from etymological considerations, theories have frequently been based on general impressions rather than on the careful sifting of evidence, isolated and secondary traits thus sometimes receiving coördinate weight with what is primary. An unmistakable bias has at the same time shown itself in favour of some one particular principle of interpretation¹. Thus an unduly large number of mythological figures have been explained as derived from dawn, lightning, sun, or moon respectively. An *à priori* bias of this kind leads to an unconsciously partial utilization of the evidence.

c3.s3.3

Such being the case, it may pove useful to suggest some hints with a view to encourage the student in following more cautious methods. On the principle that scientific investigations should proceed from the better known to the less known, researches which aim at presenting a true picture of the character and actions of the Vedic gods, ought to begin not with the meagre and uncertain conclusions of comparative mythology, but with the information supplied by Indian literature, which contains a practically continuous record of Indian mythology from its most ancient source in the RV. down to modern times². All the material bearing on any deity or myth ought to be collected, grouped, and sifted by the comparison of parallel passages, before any conclusion is drawn³. In this process the primary features which form the basis of the personification should be separated from later accretions.

c3.s3.4

As soon as a person has taken the place of a natural force in the imagination, the poetical fancy begins to weave a web of secondary myth, into which may be introduced in the course of time material that has nothing to do with the original creation, but is borrowed from elsewhere. Primary and essential features, when the material is not too limited, betray themselves by constant iteration. Thus in the Indra myth his fight with Vṛtra, which is essential, is perpetually insisted on, while the isolated statement that he strikes Vṛtra's mother with his bolt (1, 32⁹) is clearly a later touch, added by an individual poet for dramatic effect. Again, the epithet 'Vṛtra-slaying', without doubt originally appropriate to Indra alone, is in the RV. several times applied to the god Soma also. But that it is transferred from the former to the latter deity, is sufficiently plain from the statement that Soma is 'the Vṛtra-slaying intoxicating plant' (6, 17¹¹), the juice of which Indra regularly drinks before the fray. The transference of such attributes is particularly easy in the RV. because the poets are fond of celebrating gods in couples, when both share the characteristic exploits and qualities of each other (cp. § 44). Attributes thus acquired must of course be eliminated from the essential features. A similar remark applies to attributes and cosmic powers which are predicated, in about equal degree, of many gods. They can have no cogency as evidence in regard to a particular deity⁴. It is only when such attributes and powers are applied in a predominant manner to an individual god, that they can be adduced with any force. For in such case it is possible they might have started from the god in question and gradually extended to others. The fact must, however, be borne in mind in this connexion, that some gods are celebrated in very many more hymns than others. The frequency of an attribute applied to different deities must therefore be estimated relatively. Thus an epithet connected as often with Varuṇa as with Indra, would in all probability be more essential to the character of the former than of the latter. For Indra is invoked in about ten times as many hymns as Varuṇa. The value of any particular passage as evidence may be affected by the relative antiquity of the hymn in which it occurs. A statement occurring for the first time in a late passage may of course represent an old notion; but if it differs from what has been said on the same point in a chronologically earlier hymn, it most probably furnishes a later development. The tenth and the greater part of the first book of the RV.⁵ are therefore more likely to contain later conceptions than the other books. Moreover, the exclusive connexion of the ninth book with Soma Pavamāna may give a different complexion to mythological matter contained in another book. Thus Vivasvat and Trita are here connected with the preparation of Soma in quite a special manner (cp. §§ 18, 23). As regards the Brāhmaṇas, great caution should be exercised in discovering historically primitive notions in them; for they teem with far-fetched fancies, speculations, and identifications⁶.

c3.s3.5

In adducing parallel passages as evidence, due regard should be paid to the context. Their real value can often only be ascertained by a minute and complex consideration of their surroundings and the association of ideas which connects them with what precedes and follows. After a careful estimation of the internal evidence of the Veda, aided by such corroboration as the later phases of Indian literature may afford, further light should be sought from the closely allied mythology of the Iranians. Comparison with it may confirm the results derived from the Indian material, or when the Indian evidence is inconclusive, may enable us either to decide what is old and new or to attain greater definiteness in regard to Vedic conceptions. Thus without the aid of the Avesta, it would be impossible to arrive at anything like certain conclusions about the original nature of the god Mitra.

c3.s3.6

The further step may now be taken of examining the results of comparative mythology, in order to ascertain if possible, wherein consists the Vedic heritage from the Indo-European period and what is the original significance of that heritage. Finally, the teachings of ethnology cannot be neglected, when it becomes necessary to ascertain what elements survive from a still remoter stage of human development. Recourse to all such evidence beyond the range of the Veda itself must prove a safeguard against on the one hand assuming that various mythological elements are of purely Indian origin, or on the other hand treating the Indo-European period as the very starting point of all mythological notions. The latter view would be as far from the truth as the assumption that the Indo-European language represents the very beginnings of Aryan speech⁷.

c3.s3.7

¹ Oldenberg, ZDMG. 49, 173.

c3.s3.8

² PVS. XXVI—VIII.

c3.s3.9

³ Bloomfield, ZDMG. 48, 542.

c3.s3.10

⁴ HRI. 51.

c3.s3.11

⁵ Cp. Oldenberg, Die Hymnen des Ṛigveda I, Berlin 1888; E. V. Arnold, KZ. 34, 297. 344; Hopkins, JAOS. 17, 23—92.

c3.s3.12

⁶ HRI. 183. 194; v. Schröder, WZKM. 9, 120.

c3.s3.13

⁷ ORV. 26—33. Cp. also Ludwig, Über Methode bei Interpretation des Ṛgveda, Prag 1890; Hillebrandt, Vedainterpretation, Breslau 1895.

§ 5. The Avesta and Vedic Mythology

c3.s4.1

We have seen that the evidence of the Avesta cannot be ignored by the student of Vedic mythology. The affinity of the oldest form of the Avestan language with the dialect of the Vedas is so great in syntax, vocabulary, diction, metre, and general poetic style, that by the mere application of phonetic laws, whole Avestan stanzas may be translated word for word into Vedic, so as to produce verses correct not only in form but in poetic spirit¹. The affinity in the domain of mythology is by no means so great. For the religious reform of Zarathuṣtra brought about a very considerable displacement and transformation of mythological conceptions. If therefore we possessed Avestan literature as old as that of the RV., the approximation would have been much greater in this respect. Still, the agreements in detail, in mythology no less than in cult, are surprisingly numerous. Of the many identical terms connected with the ritual it is here only necessary to mention Vedic *yajña* = Avestan *yasna*, sacrifice, *hotṛ* = *zaotar*, priest, *atharvan* = *āthravan*, fire-priest, *ṛta* = *aṣ̌a* order, rite, and above all *soma* = *haoma*, the intoxicating juice of the Soma plant, in both cults offered as the main libation, pressed, purified by a sieve, mixed with milk, and described as the lord of plants, as growing on the mountains, and as brought down by an eagle or eagles (cp. § 37). It is rather with the striking correspondences in mythology that we are concerned. In both religions the term *asura* = *ahura* is applied to the highest gods, who in both are conceived as mighty kings, drawn through the air in their war chariots by swift steeds, and in character benevolent, almost entirely free from guile and immoral traits. Both the Iranians and the Indians observed the cult of fire, though under the different names of *Agni* and *Ātar*. The Waters, *āpaḥ* = *āpō*, were invoked by both, though not frequently². The Vedic Mitra is the Avestan Mithra, the sun god. The Āditya Bhaga corresponds to *bagha*, a god in general; Vāyu, Wind is *vayu*, a genius of air; Apāṃ napāt, the Son of Waters = Apãm napāt; Gandharva = Gandarewa and Kṛśānu = Kereśāni are divine beings connected with *soma* = *haoma*. To Trita Āptya correspond two mythical personages named Thrita and Āthwya, and to Indra Vṛtrahan the demon Indra and the genius of victory Verethragna. Yama, son of Vivasvat, ruler of the dead, is identical with Yima, son of Vīvaṅhvant, ruler of paradise. The parallel in character, though not in name, of the god Varuṇa is Ahura Mazda, the wise spirit. The two religions also have in common as designations of evil spirits the terms *druh* = *druj* and *yātu*¹.

c3.s4.2

¹ Bartholomae in Geiger and Kuhn's Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, vol. 1, p. 1. — ^2 Spiegel, Die Arische Periode, Leipzig 1887, p. 155. — ^3 Spiegel, op. cit. 225—33; Gruppe, Die griechischen Culte und Mythen, I, 86—97; ORV. 26—33; HRI, 167—8.

c3.s4.3

§ 6. Comparative Mythology. — In regard to the Indo-European period we are on far less certain ground. Many equations of name once made in the first enthusiasm of discovery and generally accepted, have since been rejected and very few of those that remain rest on a firm foundation. Dyaús = Ζεύς is the only one which can be said to be beyond the range of doubt. Varuṇa = Οὐρανός though presenting phonetic difficulties, seems possible. The rain-god Parjanya agrees well in meaning with the Lithuanian thunder-god Perkunas, but the phonetic objections are here still greater. The name of Bhaga is identical with the Slavonic *bogu* as well as the Persian *bagha*, but as the latter two words mean only 'god', the Indo-European word cannot have designated any individual deity. Though the name of Uṣas is radically cognate to Aurora and Ἠώς, the cult of Dawn as a goddess is a specially Indian development. It has been inferred from the identity of mythological traits in the thunder-gods of the various branches of the Indo-European family, that a thunder-god existed in the Indo-European period in spite of the absence of a common name. There are also one or two other not improbable equations based on identity of character only. That the conception of higher gods, whose nature was connected with light (√()*div*, to shine) and heaven (*div*) had already been arrived at in the Indo-European period, is shown by the common name *deivos* (Skt. *deva-s*, Lith. *deva-s*, Lat. *deu-s*), god. The conception of Earth as a mother (common to Vedic and Greek mythology) and of Heaven as a father (Skt. *Dyaùṣ pítar*, Gk. Ζεῦ πάτερ, Lat. *Jūpiter*) appears to date from a still remoter antiquity. For the idea of Heaven and Earth being universal parents is familiar to the mythology of China and New Zealand and may be traced in that of Egypt². The practice of magical rites and the worship of inanimate objects still surviving in the Veda, doubtless came down from an equally remote stage in the mental development of mankind, though the possibility of a certain influence exercised by the primitive aborigines of India on their Aryan conquerors cannot be altogether excluded.

c3.s4.4

² Gruppe op. cit. I, 97—121; ORV. 33—8; HRI. 168—9. — ^2 Tylor, Primitive Culture I, 326; Lang, Mythology. Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 150—1.

Linked texts (6)