Meaning of Myths and The Vedic Context

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
MEANING OF MYTHS AND THE VEDIC CONTEXT

Author(s): Sadashiv A. Dange
Source: Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. 72/73, No. 1/4,
Amrtamahotsava (1917-1992) Volume (1991-1992), pp. 171-180
Published by: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41694889 .
Accessed: 25/04/2014 04:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 182.178.246.250 on Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:46:38 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MEANING OF MYTHS N THE VEDIC CONTEX
By
Sadashiv A. Dange
Despite
various
opinions
and theories the
problem regarding
the mean-
ing
of
myths persists. Broadly,
there
appear
two main classes of
opinions
regarding
the
meaning
of
myths
:
(
1
)
The one which takes
myths
at their
face value and sees the
meaning
in the
very
narration
;
and
(
2
)
the one not
taking
the narration as
giving
the real
meaning,
but
seeking meaning
at the
substratum of the
narration,
in the subconscious of the
myth.
In the first
class are to be included scholars like
Tylor,
Max
Mller, Lang,
Frazer and
his followers such as Jane
Harrison,
Leach and so on. In the second class
could be included such scholars as of the Functional school like
Malinowski,
Radcliff
Brown,
the
Freudians,
Otto
Rank,
Karl
Abraham,
andthe structural-
ists like
Dumzil,
Althusser and Claude Lvi Strauss.
On the Indian scene the first
systematic
effort to
identify
the schools of
interpretation
of Vedic
myths,
not to
speak
about the
interpretation
of
single
words and
concepts,
was made
by
Yska,
as
early
as the sixth
century
B.
C.,
as is seen from the
meaning
of
Vjrtra
he
attempted.
He identified two main
schools of
interpretation,
viz. the Nairukta
( etymological )
and the Aitihsika
(
Nir. .
17).
About the first there is no
problem,
and there is a flood of
examples given by Yska,
who himself
belonged
to the Nairukta school. In
the case of
Vftra,
the name is connected to the root
vr,
"
to cover
"
to
conceal
"
;
and it was stated that
Vjrtra
is (he
personification
of the cloud as
he conceals rain-waters.
Etymology may
be taken as the basis of the
concept
of the
'
Albcoverer
'
in the case of
Vrtra ;
and this also
goes
well with the
later
mythical
ideas that
Vjrtra
had
enveloped
the whole sacrificial
material1;
also that his
body
concealed fire and
Soma,
which were released
by
Indra2
and so on.
However,
the
concept
of
Vftra goes beyond
that of the mere
1
cf. at. Br . V. 5. 5. 1
;
Mait. Sam . IL 5. 3 ; IV. 6. 5.
2
Taitt . Sam . II. 5. 1. Iff. ; at. Br-. I. 6. 3. 8ff. This motif is not restricted to the Vrtra
myth. Thus,
in one of the
myths
recorded
by
W. T.
Olcott,
Sun-lore
of
All
Ages ,
New
York-London, 1914, p. 14ff.,
the sun and the moon come out of the
body
of the
Father-in-law killed
by
his son-in law in a contest. The same motif is seen when the
twins
(
born from the same womb
=
body )
are said to be the sun and the
moon,
in a
tale from
among
the
Kootenay living
in the
rocky mountains,
Claude Lvi
Strauss,
Myth
and
Meaning , Reprint, Thetford,
Norfolk 1980
(
1978
), p.
28.
1 12 AtOkt : Amrtmahotsava Volutile
enveloper;
and
etymology
falls short of the whole
concept.
About the term
aitihsika,
and itihsa for that
matter,
the Vedic and the later tradition is
not clear. Yska
says
that
according
to the Aitihsikas Vrtra was a real
person,
the son of
Tvastr. However,
his
exploits
and the
description
of his
elder
brother, Visvarpa, hardly go
well with the contention of
reality.
For
example,
the fact that
Visvarpa
had three
heads,
and that each one
produc-
ed a different bird when it was cut
by Indra,
5
pushes
the account
away
from
reality,
or
factuality.
The same is true with Vrira from whose
body
Soma and fire are said to come out when he was divided
by
Indra. This
would
indicate,
that the Aitihsikas included such fanciful accounts also in
itihsa. The account of the
girl Ap
l who is said to have been
dragged
through
the three holes
by
Indra to render her lustrous was also an itihsa in
this sense.4 It has to be
noted,
that Yska does not
stop
after
mentioning
these schools
;
he adds a third
opinion, supported by
the
texts,
which refers
to
Vjrtra
as a
serpent (
Nir. loc. cit. ahivat tu khalu mantravarn brhmana-
vds ca
).
Vrtra
appears
in a twofold character : as a controller of waters
;
and also as a
serpent ; or, actually,
as a
water-controlling serpent.
The
concept
is a mixture of two
concepts
:
one,
of a real
person,
if we follow the
line of the
Aitihsikas,
and
two,
of his identification with the water-controll-
ing serpent.
It has to be
noted,
that Vrtra is not
purely
a water-controll-
ing serpent,
nor is he a
pure
'
enveloper
'. Association of these two
aspects
with Vrtra is seen sometimes
simultaneously ; but,
at
times, they
are
separated.
Each of these two
aspects
has
parallels
in folk-lore
;
and
they
are not restricted to Vrtra. Control of waters
by aquatic
animals such as
serpents, frogs
and crocodiles is a common
thing
in folk-lore and
myths.6
By placing
these varied
opinions
side
by side,
Yska
appears
to
give
a clue to
his
understanding
of th;
process
of
myth-making
wherein a
mythical
element
is
superimposed
on an
independent entity.
On the wastern
horizon,
and in the modern
times,
the
attempt
to
search for the
meaning
of a
myth
has been in
progress notably
since the end
of the last
century. By
the end of the last
century
and in the
beginning
of
the
present century
the effort was
tremendous,
and some of the scholars who
contributed to it are mentioned above. As far as Sanskrit
mythology
is
considered,
Max Mller identified the
following
schools of
interpretation by
3
Taitt. Saw . II. 5. 1. 1 ff. ;
J
aim. Br. II. 156 for various fruits
coming
out of the fluids
that
gushed
out of the mouth of Indra.
4
Cf. Introduction to Rv VIII. 91
by Sayana ,
atretihsam -eaksate.
Here, again,
the motif of various creatures
coming
out of the
body (
of
Apl )
is
present.
6
See
Dange,
Sadashiv
A., Legends
in the Mahabharata , Delhi, 1969, p.
293 ; And-
rew
Lang, Myth,
Ritual and
Religion, London, 1913, p.
43.
ange :
Meaning of Myths
and the Vecic Context
173
the end of the last
(
nineteenth
) century,
as :
(
1
)
Etymological
; (
2
)
Analo-
gical
or
comparative ;
and
(
3
) Psychological, Anthropological
or
Ethnologi-
cal.6
But, among
the scholars of the wider field he came to be soon looked
upon
as a
"
comic
figure
with his insistence on the naturalistic
interpreta-
tion.7 These other scholars tried in various
ways
to come to the
meaning
of
myth. By
the
beginning
of this
century
Frazer dominated
the.field, asserting
a close
relationship
between ritual and
myth, adducing examples
from a
very
wide
range.
He based his researches on
comparative study
of
religious
practices. However,
the association of ritual and
myth
was not
accepted by
all scholars
;
and this is also true insofar as
myths
unconnected with rituals
are seen. As scholars of
comparative study
of
myths
are well aware
of,
the
ritual-myth theory got
a
jolt
from the
theory propounded by
the Functional-
ists,
led
by
Bronistaw
Malinowski,
and followed
by
others. Malinowski
was not averse to
believing
that in some
cases, myths,
or
stories,
could have
a ritual-context. In
fact,
his idea of
"
sacred stories
"
and
"
chartered
myths
"
admits such a
relationship.8 However,
for the
functionalists,
the
substratum of a
myth
encases the real
meaning ;
and this has to be seen in
some function of the
society
in which the
myth
is current. The
functionalist,
and the structuralist
approach,
is
very
much similar to the
approach
of the
Freudians whose
theory
of dreams came to be extended to the realm of
myths.
It was
believed,
in this new
trend,
that the narration of the
myth
is not to be
taken as the basis of the
meaning,
or the
message,
of a
myth.
As a dream
is not the exact
reality,
but a fanciful combination of
many
real
experiences
collected in the subconscious
mind,
so the
myth
is the record of the subcon-
scious of a
society
formulated in its tradition. For Karl
Abraham, myth
was a
fragment preserved
from the infantile
psychic
life of a
race,
while a
dream was
myth
for the individual
;
and
Jung
states that
myth-makers
thought
in the same
way
as we still think in our dreams.9 The structuralists
worked about the same
premise
and undermined the narrative
part
of a
myth,
using
it
only
as means to trace the
substratum,
or the subconscious. When
Claude Lvi Strauss said that
myths
think themselves in the human
mind,
0
0
Chips from
a German
Workshop ,
Vol.
IV, London, 1907, p.
xvii.
7
Peter
Munz,
When the Golden
Bough Breaks,
Londoa and
Boston, 1973, p.
81.
8
Myth
in Primitive
Psychology , London, 1926,
referred to
by
G. S.
Kirk, Myth,
Its
Meaning
and Functions in Ancient and Other
Cultures, Cambridge
Uni.
Press,
Berkeley
and Los
Angeles, 1970, p.
20.
0
For these
opinions, Sigmund Freud, Interpretation of
Dreams
,
Standard Ed. 1953
(1900);
On
Dreams, 1954; Otto Rank, Myth nf
the Birth
of
the Hero, 1909, Eng.
Tr. 1913; C. J.
Jung, Symbols of Transformation,
1911, Eng. Tr.,
4th Ed. 1956.
10
Mariam
Glucksmann,
Structural
Analysis
in
Contemporary Thought,
London and
Boston, 1974, p.
82
(Claude
Lvi
Strauss, Mythologiques, I, Paris, 1964, p. 20);
Peter
Munz, Op,
Cit .
p.
5.
174 ABO RI : Amriamahotsava Volume
his idea was that a
myth gets
formed in the human mind
;
the mind does not
form it
;
and this formation is due to subconscious influence of the
experi-
ences that a
society
has had
through
the
ages.
This would
mean,
that no
one individual
e
makes
'
a
myth.
It should be
noted,
that the notion of stru-
cturalism does not start with
Lvy
Strauss. It was a French fashion and is
known from the
early
twenties of this
century. Among
the Sanskrit
scholars,
Dumzil said that
only
a
group
of
facts,
or
structures,
has a
meaning,
and
that there are similarities of
concepts
and social structures
throughout
the
ancient world.1! Althusser and Lvi Strauss
speak
of the
'problematic'
of
a
myth,
which is the central
message ; and,
it could be
comprehended
thro-
ugh submitting
the
myth
to divisions and structures.
But,
with all the efforts
of Lvi Strauss with his horizontal and
perpendicular
columnization of the
material of the narration of a
myth
and its
versions,1-
this method could not
be a safe
key
to unlock the
4
message
'
of a
myth. However,
the
suggestion
that there is no true version of a
myth, meaning
that one must
get
as
many
versions of a
particular myth
as
possible,
has been
accepted.
The
problem,
however,
is : What is the basis of
taking
a
particular
account as a m:re ver-
sion of a main account
-
the whole
account, part
of an
account,
or even the
motif found in the accounts ?
Lvy
Strauss is
clearly
confused as
regards
this
problem (see
his lectures in
1977, Myth
and
Meaning)
and bundles
various
accounts,
such as the
Hare-lip,
birth with
legs coming
out first and
the
twins, together.1'
He also shifts his
original position
of
collecting
the
myths (
or accounts
)
from the same tribe to
collecting
them from tribes
living
apart
with a
plea
that tribes can
migrate.

But,
this is also what the older
scholars,
like Donald
Mackenzie,
stated.13 Structuralism became unsafe in
the hands of Lvi
Strauss,
as Mariam Glucksmann
rightly
states :
4<
To
analyse myths,
as Lvi Strauss
do^s,
must
require
a
good
deal of individual
flair and
genius
...
; but,
he is so individualistic that
practically
no one else
would be able to learn the method.
"16
11
Mariam
Glucksmann, Op. Cit., p.
50.
y
Structural
Anthropology, Penguin, Londor,
1969
( 1963), p. 312,
where he
anylises
the
myth
of
Oedipus.
13
Myth
and
Meaning ,
London and
Henley, p.
30 ;
pp.
25-33.
14
Ibid, p.
26;
cf.
"
... we
have,
as sometimes
happens,
to make a
jump
from South
America to North America ...
Many people
have
reproached
me
for^his
kind of
pro-
cedure."
in
Myths of
China and
Japan,
London
(no year), p. 4,
"
Prospective
routes
by
land
and sea were the avenues
along
which cultural influences drifted ". In his
opinion
( loc. cit .
)
civilizations were never in a state of
splendid
isolation.
l
Op. Cit., p.
92 ; also
p. 47,
4
Lvi Strauss tries to make a
reading
of his work as diffi-
cult for the reader as the
deciphering
of a
myth
was for himself;
"
and
further, p. 48,
"
The reader is
expected
to work at
reading
his books
"
due to the
jigsaw
nature of his
writing.
Dange :
Meaning of Myths
add the Vedic Cantext 175
Structuralism,
as
such, irrespective
of its use
by
Levi Strauss or
any
other
scholar,
could
yet
be used as a method to
go
to the
meaning
of a
myth;
and as it
appears,
these
structures,
or

bundles
'
would
ultimately go
to
bring
to the fore the various motifs in a
myth.
What creates the
problem
is the
exact
interpretation
of the
4
bundles
'
(
the
homologues
or the
inversions,
if one
so likes to call them !
),
where
reality
is often in the
danger
of
getting tinged
with
subjectivity.
It is true
that,
to know the
meaning
of a
group
of
myths
it is
good
to stick to the same
region,
or the same tradition
(
a method not
strictly
followed
by
the school of Frazer
) ; but,
even the structuralist like
Lvy
Strauss shifts his
stand, giving
a sort of an
apologistic explanation,
as we
have hinted above. The fact
is,
that some of the
myths
collected
by Lvy
Strauss from the tribes in the western coast -of North America as far
away
as
the Alaskan
region
and those from the west coast of South America
( regions
wide
apart )
have motifs similar to those from the Trobiand islands off the
Australian north coast.17 This would indicate that the tribais have almost
the same
problems
in a
particular stage
of life. This is
particularly
seen in
the case of creation
myths.
Some of the
symbols
used in the narration are
also alike in
regions
wide
apart. Thus,
the
eye
was the
symbol
of the
gene-
rative
organ among
the ancient
Egyptians.
The
eye
of Atum is said to have
been a female
divinity ;
tears from it are said to have created the humans.18
Now,
the
atapatha
Brhmana
(
at. Br.
) speaks
of the

tear
'
giving
rise to
manifold creation at various levels.19 The tear from the
eye
of a bird
helps
impregnate
the female bird in one of the stories from the
Himalayan region ;20
and the same
appears
to be the case in the creation account from the Dhak-
kalwar tribe from the Karnataka- Maharashtra
region
of India.-1 Such
sym-
17
Cf. the element of sex in the stories of Asdiwal and its versions in the accounts of Waux
(
AsdiwaPs son
)
and Asi-hwil from
among
the Tsimshian Indians of extreme North
America, on the one
hand, and,
on the
other,
from the Trobiand islands in the
story
of
4
The
Happy Family
' The first set was -collected
by
Franz Boas, and used
by many ;
the
second by
R. M. and C. H. Bernd
t,
The World
of
the First Australians
,
London,
1964.
'
18
Rundle
Clark, Myth
and
Symbol
in Ancient
Egypt , London, 1959, p. 224,
the
eye
is
called
"
most ancient female in the world
"
;
p.
72 Atum
says,
"
The
gods
I created
from
my
sweat ; but mankind is from the tears of
my eyes
"
; also
p.
93.
19
VI. 1. 2.
1-9,
where the word asm
, probably
is chosen to work on its
etymological
implication (
from Vas
,
"
to
pervade
"
) ; yet
the
symbol
of the fluid from the
eye
cannot
escape
the
explanation,
more so in .view of the
examples
at other
places
and
among
other
people.
20
Here the vulture
weeps
; and the tears that fall are drunk
by
the female vulture ; she
becomes
pregnant.
21
This reference is from a
paper
read
by
Dr. Prabhakar Mande at the
"
National Seminar
on
Comparative Mythology
"
arranged by
the
Department
of
Sanskrit, University
of
Bombay,
Jan. 17th to
19th,
1991.
176 ABO RI : Amrtamahotsava Volume
bols and motifs
present
a more reliable
ground
for the
probe
of the
meaning
of a
myth ; because,
the narration fixes their dimensions
;
and
they
could be
compared
with other such cases.
But,
when one delves into the subconscious
there is
every possibility
of
guess trying
to ride the truth !
Thus,
in the case of
the American west coast
'
myths
'

spreading
from Alaska in the extreme
north to Peru in the South

instead of
believing
that the
myth
is
present-
ing
various
types
of
twins,
some
being strong
cases and the others
weak,
it
is safer to stick to the narration and mark
why
the
girls
select men that
they
come across on the
way,
and
why they
are led to believe that the
young
man
they
meet on the
way
is to be taken as their real would-be husband. This
way,
the

message
'
of the
group
of
myths
would be in the
'
problematic
'
of
marriage,
rather than that of the twins
though
the twins do
present
an intere-
sting phenomenon
in
many
accounts'23
(
the
point
which
cannot,
and need
not,
be discussed here
). Lvy
Strauss
says (
and
rightly )
that a
couple giving
births to two babes at the same time
produces
twins
; but,
two sisters
giving
birth to different babes from different men
they
meet on the road are also
said to
produce

twins
'
as the situation
( meeting
on the road
)
is the same !
Likewise,
the same
girl giving
birth to a babe from the trickster who meets
her on the
way,
and one from her real
husband-god (
as she was told
),
is
also believed to
produc
4
twins
And,
then there is the
argument
of
"
untwining
the twins
"
in the case where the exact twins do not
appear (
as
in the cases above
).
Further,
in the
story
of the
poor girl
who saves herself
from the sack of the demoness
by coming out, legs first,
is also believed to
b
enacting
the 'twin'
(two legs V Moreover,
in the account of the hare
getting
his
lip split
due to ths stroke of a cane
given by
a
girl,
as she strides
over the
log
of wood under which the hare has concealed himself
(
so that he
can see her
genitals
?
)
and utters an
unsavoury remark,
the
explanation given
by Lvy
Strauss is
that,
if the hare is cut
along
the
split wholly
and divided
thus,
his two
parts
would be taken as
forming
the twins ! Well ! The
expla-
nation is both
intelligent
and
ingenious ; yet,
there is
hardly any
basis for it
in the narration.
And,
there can be
hardly any
doubt that even the sub-
conscious has to have substantial basis of real
experiences.
In connection with the
problem
of the
meaning
of
myth
it is
necessary
to examine the
opinion
of Peter Munz. He
suggested
the historical
method,
22
Lvi Strauss ; see note 13 above.
23
ibid
p.
25.
Among
other
tribes,
the Arunta
always
killed the twins. The Ainu of
North
Japan slay
one of the twins; see J. P.
Murdock,
Our Premitive Contem-
poraries ,
New
York,
1957
(1934), p. 34; P5; 464; 526; 578 ; J. G.
Frazer,
Folk-
lore
of
the Old Testament, Vol.
Ill, 1918, p.
132.
24
Lvi
Strauss, Myth
and
Meaning, pp.
25-33.
Dange :
Meaning of Myths
and the Vedic Context 177
as he calls it
;
and the
approach
is of
"
Typological Interpretation
". He
states that at the bottom of a
myth,
or a series of
myths
of similar
nature,
there is often
only
a small
degree
of
variation,
from a rational event or
occurrence. He
says
that the first
mythical
formation is often
very
modest
and shows almost no
signs
of
extravagance
or
supernatural complexity.
He
takes the
example
of the theme of
sacrifice,
and
says
that at the remotest
past
it is
just
a
simple
statement of an animal
being killed,
and
nothing
else. It is
a true
happening.
The event tends to become a
myth
the moment a
slightly
incredible feature has been
introduced,
with the
probable
modification of the
beginning
of the account
as,
"
Once
upon
a time... ".
5
As he
goes
on ex-
plaining further,
he
says
that an account of fact
gets
turned into a
myth
with
the embroiderment of narrations. The
process goes
on at
every repetition
of
the old
account,
and the
myth grows. According
to him the
growth
indicates
the evolution of the
myth
till the final
(
the word

final
'
has to
be, then,
taken
only
in a loose
sense,
as there is
every probability
of the
myth growing
even
afterwards !
)
account with all embroiderments. These
subsequent
accounts,
with the details added
freshly,
he
gives
the name
'
anti-type
*
of the
original
account. The
process
has to be studied he
says ;
and this is the historical
method. He
suggests
that the
meaning
of the
myth
cannot unfold itself unless
one starts from the last
anti-type (
i. e. the last
mythical
version
)
and under-
takes a feed-back. He further
suggests that,
in this
way,
it is noticed that an
original
account turns further
mythical
at various
stages
till it enters into the
realm of
metaphysics. Thinking
on these lines
he, naturally, says
that this
series of
anti-types
of a
myth ( or,
of
really
the
original
actual event ?
)
forms
the case for
'
typology
He stresses that the historical method of
interpreta-
tion of
myths
is based on such
typology. But,
for such a
study
there should
be available a
complete
set of a
myth
and its
anti-types.
In this context he
says,
"
One of the most
striking
and
complete
instances of such a
typological
system stretching
from a
ritual-myth barely distinguishable
from a natural
event to a
highly conceptualised metaphysical system
is
provided
in the Indian
thought." According
to
him,
from the
Ijigveda , through
the
Brhmanas,
in
whose
"
hymns
"
(
?
)
the science of sacrifice is
elaborated,
we
pass
on to the
Upanisads
on the threshold of
metaphysical
abstraction. He
says,
"All
these
steps
in the series are extant and
provide
therefore a
fully
documented
example
of the transformation of nature into
myth,
the
specification
of
myth
into
highly
detailed
symbols
and
aphorisms and, finally,
the transformation
of the
aphorisms
into
metaphysical concepts.
The communal
repast
is the
type;
Sakara's
metaphysics,
the anti-
type".53'1
25
Peter
Munz,
When the Golden
Potigh
Breaks
,
London and Boston
1973, p.
39ff.
; se
the
Chapter
on
"
Typological Interpretation
".
26
Ibid, pp.
46-47.
23 Annals,
BORI
[
A. M.
]
178
ABO RI : mrtamahotsava Volume
Apart
from the fact that this observation of Munz about the Vedic
material is based on second hand sources
( obviously,
translations
),
it does
not hold
good
for
getting
at the
meaning
of
myth.
What is said about the
second hand sources can be
noted, instantly,
from his reference to the
"
hymns
"
in the Brhmana texts. His statement is true insofar as one is
about to trace the various
stages
of the
original myth ;
and there is no doubt
that some creation
myths
tend to
verge
on
metaphysics
(
or,
we
may call,
proto-philosophy )
but,
a
sweeping
statement of this sort canoot hold
good
in
respect
of all
types
of
myths,
nor is
metaphysics
the natural culmina-
tion of a
myth.
Also the
suggestion
that the last
anti-type
would throw
light
on the status of the initial
myth
is
unacceptable.
The
anti-type,
as Munz
calls
it,
is a case of
palimpsest,
which would
(
and
often,
does
)
make a
myth
complex ;
it cannot be a sure
key
to the
unfolding
of the
original myth.
Let
us take an
example.
1 he
Rgveda
has the
myth
of the Father
copulating
with
, running after,
his own
daughter (
. 71. 5
;
X. 61. 5-7
),
where the
daugh-
ter
is, obviously,
the earth
(X.
61. 7
ksmay
...
sanjagmnah).
The Father
is not
specified. Yet,
the deed is awkward
;
and the Father is shot with an
arrow
by
an
archer,
who is also not
specified (I.
71. 5
).
The
Aitareya
Br

(
III. 33
)
makes a
regular creation-myth
out of this account
;
and so does the
atapatha
Br.
(
I. 7. 41 ff.
) ; but,
here we
get
the ritual detail that the shooter
of the arrow was Rudra
;
and the Father was
Prajpati ;
also the flesh of
Prajpati sticking
to the
tip
of the arrow of Rudra is not to
go
waste
;
various
gods
are asked to eat it
; ultimately
it is eaten
by Brahmanaspati.
This is the
mythical palimpsest
(
or.
embroidery,
if we
may say
so with Munz
) ; and,
in
the actual ritual there is no mention of th^ flesh
(
indicating,
most
probably,
the loss of the earliest
phase
of the ritual when an
antelope
was
killed,28
representing Prajpati,
and the little
portion
of its flesh was eaten
by
the
priest ),
but a
portion
of the
purodsa
called here
praitra.
Now,
we could
say,
that the
Prajpati- daughter
variation is an
anti-type (with Munz);
and
we have a further
anti-type
in that
Prajpati
is said to have become the ante-
lope
and the
daughter
the female deer
(
Ai. Br. loc, cit.
).
We have further

embroidery
'
in the Puranic versions :
Prajpati (here, Brahm)
created a
beautiful
girl ;
she circumambulated him
;
as he looked at her and cast his
eyes
to all the
quarters
he
developed
four heads
;
the
girl
transformed herself
into a bird
;
and so did Brahm for
pursuing
her
;
she
sought
the
help
of the
iva-liga
at the mountain
Arucala; suddenly,
iva
emerged
from the
27
See
my paper
"
Protophilosophy
in
Myths J
.
of
the Indian
Musicological Society ,
Vol.
18,
Pt.
2, Baroda,
Dec. 1987.
28
See
my paper,
"The Riddle of the Black
Antelope," Prof
.
Handiqui
Fel.
Vol.,
Gauhati,
1982.
Dange :
Meaning of Myths
and the Vedic Context 179
liga
and was about to shoot an arrow at
him,
but was
pacified by
BrahmS
(Skanda-P.
1.3. 5. 49-62
).2) Now,
this last
episode
is the
'anti-type'
all
right. But,
can it stand
surety
to the
original meaning
of the
myth
as it
occurs in the
Rgveda
?
Further
variations
say
that Brahma is the
god
of lear-
ning,
and the
daughter
is
Sarasvat,
the
faculty
of
speech.
And a further
step
into the realm of
metaphysics
would be to
say
that the
myth suggests
in-
timate
relationship
between
knowledge
and
speech. But,
this would be
go-
ing
far
astray.
The fact is that the evolution of an
account,
or the later
variations of a
myth,
cannot be taken as a sure
help
to unfold its
meaning
in
the earliest form.
Thus,
the so-called historical method has to be used care-
fully.
One
good point
in this method is that one need not undermine the
narration. There is a close
similarity
between this method and that of the
structuralists. The structuralists are
space-conscious
and would like to stick
to the same
region
(
though
this is not
exactly true,
as we have seen above
).
So
is,
more or
less,
the case with the functionalists. The historical method
would consider the time
factor, though
not
chronology, strictly speaking.
Again,
it would not leave ritual from its
purview,
as is clear from the men-
tion of the Brhmana texts.
However,
the
problem
comes when there is
similarity
of motifs in
myths
in
regions
wid?
apart. Thus,
the motif of the
Father

desiring'
his
daughter
obtains also in one of the
nursery
tales from
England,
which is current also in
Ireland, Scotland, Italy,
France and other
countries.
i0
It is also seen in the tale of Enki and
Ninbarsag
from ancient
Sumeria
;
and in the Vedic and tha Sumerian
myths
it is
closely
related to the
gain
of water
-
in the
Vedic,
with the rain
( symbolised
as
'
semen
'
),
and in
the Sumerian with inundation.
;J1
In certain
cases,
ritual
produces
a
myth ;
and,
on the other
hand,
a
myth
is enacted as a ritual.8- This is marked
pro-
minently
in a number of Vedic
myths.
The case of the
prsitra
mentioned
above is
just
an
example;
and a
very
weak
one,
for that matter. Certain
good examples
are
Apl,
usna
swallowing
Indra in the form of a
lump
of
honey
and so
on,
whsre ritual would throw welcome
light
on the
meaning
of
29
For other
variations,
see
Dange,
Sadashiv
A., Encyclopaedia of
Puranic
Beliefs
and
Practices
,
Vol.
I,
New
Delhi, 1986,
under Brahm
(Vols. I-V, 1986-1990).
30
G. L.
Gomme, Folk-lore as an Historical Science
, London, 1908, p.
50.
81
For a fuller
study
of the
myth
of the Father and the
Daughter see, Dange,
Sadashiv
A.,
Sexual
Symbolism from
the Vedic Ritual
, Delhi, 1979, pp.
141-159.
2
This fact has to be
accepted
even if one does not
accept
the
Ritual-myth theory
in
toto. E. R. Leach
(
Political
Systems of High-land Burma,
London and Cam-
bridge, 1954),
for
example, says
that
myth
is the
counterpart
of ritual; myth implies
ritual ; ritual
implies myth,
and that
myth
is a statement in words,
while ritual is a
statement in action ; both are
symbolic
statements. Others who had
already
said the
same are Jane Harrison and E. Durkheim.
80 ABO Ri: Arnrtamahotsava Volume
the
myths.33
At times we have the record of a
ritual,
but no
myth ; and,
ill
some
cases,
we have a
mythical
account
;
it is
misunderstood,
till we com-
pare
the details with a case where there is no
myth
but a ritual with similar
details. The case of the virile
monkey
(Vrskapi
),
who has been taken to
be a fool and a buffoon
by
scholars,
is one of the
examples. But,
the
myth
becomes clear if we
compare
the details from the
hymn (X.
86
)
with ritual-
details of immolation and sacrifice at the Horse-sacrifice. What becomes clear
in this case is
that,
the
'
myth
'
of
Vjrsakapi
and the ritual at the Horse-sacri-
fice have the
following
common
points
:
(
1
)
Both show sexual overtone as a
necessary
feature. The Horse and ther
queen
at the Horse sacrifice are set in
a
symbolic
sexual union as the;
priests
chant the mantras. At the
Vrskapi
hymn
( apt
to be understood as a
myth ),
this detail is at vv. 16-17
;
(
2
)
At
both sacrificial
killing
is clear. In th? case of the
horse,
there is a clear sacri-
fice,
while in the case of the virile
ape,
it is
suggested
at v. 18.:4 The same is
the case with the
supposed
riddle of a
mythical
'
fight
'
at the
hymn
of Mud-
gala ( F
X. 102
)
;
and scholars have
interpreted
it as a ral
fight
where some
'
robbers
'
were driven
away by Mudgala.
The details to be noted
are,
a
woman
riding
a make-belief- chariot
(
mithukrtam ratham but the horse
is absent, and we have details
regarding
a
bull,
which
is,
obviously,
a ritual-
bull. Then the detail of this bull
being yoked
to a wooden
log,
which is
carried to the next
boundary
of the
'
ji
'
(
which word was misunderstood as
a
'battlefield',
but
which,
in
reality)
is the field of
corn,
the word
ji
serving
as a
symbol
not to be taken in its flat sensed5
The
examples given
above from the
Rgveda
are
just specimens,
and
could serve to show the
necessity
of
freshly studying
the material from the
Veda and the
Purnas,
in the
light
of the new and modern theories to
go
to
the inner
meaning
of a
myth,
which is a
very complex
formula.
Though
there is no one
key
to
open
a
myth,
our
guide
couid be
symbolic words,
in
addition to the
comparative method,
without
undermining
the narration.
3:i
For the motif of
swallowing
in the Vedic and later
myths,
see
Dange,
Sadashiv A..
Legends
in the Mahabharata
, Delhi, 1969, pp,
171 ff. ; see there the
exposition
on
the
myth
of Kaca and Sukra.
31
On this see
Dange,
Sadashiv A.. Sexual
Symbolism from
the Vedic Ritual
, pp.
34ff.
also
by
the same
author,
Vedic
Concept of
4
Field
'
and the Divine
Fructification,
Univ. of
Bombay Pbn., Bombay, 1971, pp.
49-67.
See Vedic
Concept
...
, pp. 108-122,
"
The Bull of
Mudgala
".

Meaning of Myths and The Vedic Context

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meaning of Myths and The Vedic Context

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

MEANING OF MYTHS AND THE VEDIC CONTEXT

You might also like