"Chapter I. Prehistoric times"
"Chapter II. Ice Age"
"Chapter III. Arctic regions"
"Chapter IV. Night of the Gods"
"Chapter V. Vedic Dawns"
"Chapter VI. Long day and long night"
"Chapter VII. Months and seasons"
"Chapter VIII. The path of the cows"
Promotional video:
"Chapter IX. Vedic myths about captive waters"
"Chapter IX. Vedic myths about captive waters. 1. Legend of Indra and Vritra"
Whoever has read the descriptions of the struggle between Indra and Vala cannot but be surprised that four simultaneous results of victory are given: 1) the liberation of the cows; 2) release of waters; 3) the appearance of dawn and 4) the appearance of the sun. Let us now see if the thunderstorm theory can satisfactorily explain the simultaneous appearance of these results generated by the victory over Vritra. If Vritra is a cloud, a thundercloud covering the sky, then Indra, striking with his thunderous weapon, is quite suitable for the description of the liberator of the waters held in clouds. But where, then, are the cows that are said to have freed them along with the waters? The niruktaks believe that cows mean water, but then one cannot describe the liberation of both as two different effects.
It is even more difficult to explain through the theory of thunderstorms that the dawn and the sun appear together with the release of the waters - it cannot be explained in this way at all. Rain clouds can darken the sun, but this is not a regular phenomenon, and it cannot be considered that the sun is born (or emerged) as a source of light as a result of breaking clouds that sometimes obscure it. The birth of dawn, like the reward for Indra's victory in the conflict with Vritra, which occurred simultaneously with the liberation of the waters, is equally inexplicable by the theory of thunderstorms. Rain clouds appear in the sky here and there, and sometimes they can be seen above the horizon, but the idea is absurd that, breaking the clouds, Indra raised the dawn into the sky.
I have not seen a single attempt by scientists to explain this simultaneity of the four results of Indra's victory, based in these attempts on any theory. Thus, the Nirukta school put forward the theory of thunderstorms due to the fact that the release of waters was taken as the main result of victory, and these "waters" were taken, of course, for ordinary water that we see every day. But still, despite the efforts of the Nirukta school and Western scholars, the simultaneous liberation of light and water remains unexplained. A. McDonnell says about this difficulty: “There is some confusion between the fact of the sun's rebirth after the darkness of a thunderstorm and the appearance of the sun at dawn after the darkness of the night. The last feature in the myth of Indra is most likely only an extension of the first. " If these words mean anythingthen this is just a recognition of the Vedic specialists of their inability to explain the simultaneity of the four indicated results of the victory of Indra over Vritra, based on the theory of thunderstorms. Oddly enough, they seem to attribute their mistake not to their own ignorance or powerlessness, but to confusion in the ideas of the Vedic bards.
The point described is not the only one in which the inability to explain the essence of the legend of Indra and Vritra through the theory of thunderstorms is exposed. It was stated above that Vritra was killed in remote places, where terrible darkness reigned and everything was covered by water, and in the hymn (X, 73, 7), Indra, killing Namuchi, that is Vritra, cleared the "Devayana gate" - the paths of the gods, which is obvious indicates the killing of Vritra at the gate of the path leading to the kingdom of the gods. Even the Avesta says that the battle of Tishtrya with Apaosha took place at sea. Vourakasha, and then Tishtrya, after this battle, follows the path created by Ahura Mazda. Vritra's refuge is equally described as “hidden” and “shrouded in water” at the very bottom of space - “rajas” (I, 52, 6). None of these conditions correspond to the possibility of clouds turning into a scene for the battle of Indra with Vritra,since clouds cannot be called an ocean of waters, neither can a cloud be described as dwelling in a distant place or lying at the gate of the Devayana, that is, the Way of the gods.
In the Rig Veda, the word "distant" - "paravat", is often contrasted with the word "aravat", meaning the region of this or a neighboring country. So, devayana contrasts with pitriana, meaning the northern celestial hemisphere. And the clouds over the head of the observer here cannot be called either a distant place or the gate of the Devayana. Nor can we speak of them as shrouded in sunless darkness. Therefore, the idea that the rain clouds could have been the scene where the battle between Indra and Vritra was going on seems very incredible.
It was the sea on the far side, an ocean of darkness contrasting with the shining ocean, shukram arnakh, where the sun rises in the morning. There was a battle taking place, judging by the passages mentioned above. And this perception can only be associated with another world, with the lower part of the celestial hemisphere, but not with the clouds floating and the sky overhead. I do not mean to say that Indra could not be the god of rains or thunderstorms, but in the role of Vritrahan - the killer of Vritra - he cannot be defined only as the god of rains, unless for this purpose the descriptions of the battle given in the Vedas are not ignored and discarded.
A third objection to the accepted interpretation of the Vritra myth is that it does not provide a satisfactory explanation of those passages that indicate the time of Indra's battle with the demon. According to the theory of the thunderstorm, it should have occurred during the rainy season ("varsha"), but those forts of Vritra, about which it is said that Indra destroyed them, which earned the epithets "purabhid" - "city breaker" and "purandara" - "destroyer cities "are described in the Veda as" autumn "-" charadih ", that is, correlated with the fall, with the season following the" varsha "- summer. This discrepancy can be attributed to the fact that sometimes, presumably, both of these seasons merge into one, called a "charade". But such an explanation does not agree with another place in the Rig Veda (X, 62, 2), which says,that Vala was killed at the end of the year - "parivatsara" - this can only be accepted if we agree with the idea that the year at that time began with the season of "charades". We cannot explain how Indra killed Arbuda with ice, a lump, a piece of ice, defined by the word "hima". And yet - as already mentioned, the dawn cannot be perceived as a reward for victory in the conflict, nor about the battle itself, we will not say that it took place in darkness, if we stop at the fact that the battle was fought in the rainy season. Thus we see that the theory of the thunderstorm does not help to satisfactorily explain the indications of the time of the battle between Indra and Vritra.the dawn cannot be perceived as a reward for victory in the conflict, nor about the battle itself, we will not say that it took place in darkness, if we stop at the fact that the battle was fought in the rainy season. Thus we see that the theory of the thunderstorm does not help to satisfactorily explain the indications of the time of the battle between Indra and Vritra.the dawn cannot be perceived as a reward for victory in the conflict, nor about the battle itself, we will not say that it took place in darkness, if we stop at the fact that the battle was fought in the rainy season. Thus we see that the theory of the thunderstorm does not help to satisfactorily explain the indications of the time of the battle between Indra and Vritra.
The fourth objection to the thunderstorm theory as applied to the history of Vritra is that many words like "parvat, giri or adri", which do not mean "clouds", neither in the direct or indirect sense of the word, are translated as figuratively referring to rain clouds. This sounds incomprehensible in relation to many passages where it is said that Indra and Brihaspati punched a mountain or broke through the entrance to a stone cave and freed the waters like cows trapped there. We could only explain this by the theory of thunderstorms, if there were no other acceptable theory. So Nirukta does, explaining every word referring to the place where the waters (that is, the cows) were hidden, as having the meaning of rain clouds moving across the sky. But if you could sometimes step over difficulties in this way,distorting the words found in the text or giving them an unusual meaning, then this would always be a step backward, leading away from the path of correct and valuable translation. Probably for this reason, Professor G. Oldenberg suggested that Indra, who broke through the mountain and freed the waters from there, corresponds in this act not to a rain cloud, but to real mountains, which he destroyed with his weapon * and released rivers. But, according to Max Müller, “rivers will not run out of rocks, even those struck by lightning,” and therefore Professor Oldenberg's deciphering, helping to overcome one difficulty, leads us to another, no less entertaining. And it turns out that if we cannot offer a better explanation, we, as it were, can accept the words of the Nirukta school and translate the word "parvata" and others similar to it, defining the places where the waters are hidden, as "cloud",and try to make the best use of the thunderstorm theory.
* In Hindu iconography, this object is called "vajra" and looks like a two-headed club with pointed ends. Below in this translation, this term will be used without explanatory replacement by another word.
From the above consideration of the thunderstorm theory in its application to the legend of Indra and Vritra, it became clear that it cannot help to find an explanation for the fact that the results of Indra's victory were simultaneous, nor for the discovery of the place of the battle, nor the time of its holding, nor does it give us the opportunity to find the correct meaning words in the passages being studied. And we also see that this theory became the basis for deciphering the legend, starting from the time of the establishment of the Nirukta school, and remains to this day. It is correct in it that it affirms the liberation of the waters as a result of the battle, but it is not the only one we need confirmation of. Recall that there are four simultaneous effects generated by Indra's victory: the liberation of the waters, the liberation of the cows, the birth of the dawn and the appearance of the sun.
The thunderstorm theory explains the first two, and the dawn theory the second two. But all four were not explained by anyone, just as, having combined these theories, one cannot use their instructions to clarify the question of the four results. Unless, of course, like Professor McDonell, we suppose that the Vedic bards confused two completely different ideas, namely, the return of sunlight after the end of the storm and the birth of light from the darkness of the night.
The schools of Nirukta in ancient times chose from the two theories the one that was more consistent with the fact of the liberation of the waters and was closer to their ideas about Indra as the god of thunderstorms, perhaps guided by the principle that something is better than nothing, and ignored the rest of these legends as inexplicable, unimportant and unimportant. The same theory was assimilated by Western scientists, and now it remains the only one recognized. But it is so demonstratively inadequate to the essence of the hymns that if a better one appeared, with the help of which it would be possible to interpret - if not all, then at least the main part of them - then everyone would not hesitate to reject the theory of the thunderstorm, accepting this new one.
In my opinion, it is a mistake to think that the battle of Indra with Vritra was originally the battle of the god of storms with rain clouds. It was in fact a struggle between the forces of light and darkness, traces of which we see in "Aytareya Brahman" (IV, 5), which says that Indra, the only one of all the gods, considered it his duty to extract the Asuras from the darkness of the night. It is clear from many passages of the Rig Veda that Indra is the god of light. This monument says without mentioning Vritra that Indra found the light (III, 34, 4; VIII, 15, 5; X, 43, 4) and found it in the darkness (I, 108, 8; IV, 16, 4), or he gave birth to the dawn, just like the sun (II, 12, 7; II, 21, 4; III, 31, 15), or he opened the darkness with the dawn and the sun (I, 62, 5). It was he who made the sun shine (VIII, 3, 6) and ascend into the sky (I, 7, 3), or prepared the way for him (X, 111, 3), or found the sun, which was in darkness (III, 39, 5).
From these verses it is clear that it was Indra who acquired the light and the sun, and this essence of him was perfectly understood by scientists. Max Müller compares Indra as the "Discoverer" of the waters ("apavarian" - from "apavr") with Apollo. But scholars have found it difficult to explain why this manifestation of Indra's essence is mentioned along with his other exploits, such as the victory over Vritra and the liberation of the waters. This is the real difficulty in explaining the legend that the theory of thunderstorms and the theory of dawn face. Indra, having killed Vritra, freed the waters and raised the dawn - this is undoubtedly the center of the load throughout history. But no explanation has been found for the fact of the simultaneous liberation of light and waters. We have already seen that the theory of a thunderstorm can be associated with the release of waters, but not with the appearance of dawn. Again, if dawn theory helps to understand the battle between darkness and light, which can be understood as the discovery of dawn and sun,but not as the release of waters. Under such circumstances, it is necessary to look closely at the nature and nature of the waters in the descriptions of the Rig Veda and only then decide whether we accept or reject both of the above theories.
It has already been noted that in passages where the waters are described as liberated by Indra after the killing of Vritra, there are no clear indications of rain clouds. Words such as "parvat, giri" and others are used to indicate the place where the waters were hidden, and the words "apah, sindhus" are used to name the waters as such. But "apah" as "water in general" is used in many places in the Rig Veda, and often to denote heavenly or atmospheric waters. Thus, we are told that they follow the path of the gods and are near the sun, and it is with them (I, 23, 17). Further, in the hymn (VII, 49, 2) we see an expressive indication that there are "heavenly waters" - "divyah apah", and flowing along the earthly channels - "khanitrimah", which emphasizes the difference between them. In the same hymn it is said that their goal is the ocean, and in the hymn (VIII, 69, 12) it is said that seven rivers flow into the mouth of Varuna, as if into an abyss,covered in waves. Varuna is again described as a god who, like Indra, makes rivers flow (II, 28, 4). We have also already seen that the sage Dirghatamasa were carried on themselves by waters striving towards their goal (I, 158, 6).
There is no need to give more examples, since scientists agreed that both heavenly and earthly waters are mentioned in the Rig Veda. But it turns out that nature, character, and the movement of heavenly waters are understood very imperfectly. And this is the reason why scientists were not able to connect the fact of the liberation of the waters with the appearance of dawn in the legend of Vritra. It seems, it was assumed that the instructions in the Rig Veda to the heavenly waters - "divyah apah" refer only to rain moisture. But this is a mistake. In the verses, which speaks of the creation of the world (X, 82, 6; X, 129, 3), it is said that it originally consisted of indivisible waters. In short, the Rig Veda, like the Jewish Scripture, expressively indicates that the world was originally filled with water, and water was above and below space.
Continuation: "Chapter IX. Vedic myths about captive waters. 3. Cosmology in the Rig Veda"