meaning of myths and the vedic context

8/12/2019 Meaning of Myths and the Vedic Context

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/meaning-of-myths-and-the-vedic-context 1/11

handarkar Oriental Research Institute

MEANING OF MYTHS AND THE VEDIC CONTEXTAuthor(s): Sadashiv A. DangeSource: Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. 72/73, No. 1/4,Amrtamahotsava (1917-1992) Volume (1991-1992), pp. 171-180Published by: Bhandarkar Oriental Research InstituteStable 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 [email protected].

.

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 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bori

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41694889?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/41694889?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bori



MEANING OF MYTHS ÁNĎ THE VEDIC CONTEXŤ

By

Sadashiv A. Dange

Despitevariousopinions nd theories heproblem egardinghemean-ingofmyths ersists. Broadly,thereappear two main classesof opinions

regarding he meaningof myths ( 1 The one which akesmyths t theirface value and seesthemeaningn theverynarration and ( 2 ) theone nottaking he narrations giving hereal meaning,but seekingmeaning t thesubstratumf thenarration,n the subconsciousof the myth. In thefirstclass are to be included cholars ike Tylor,Max Müller, Lang, Frazer andhis followers uchas JaneHarrison, Leach and so on. In the second classcould be included uchscholars s of the Functional chool likeMalinowski,Radcliff rown,theFreudians,OttoRank, Karl Abraham, ndthe tructural-ists ikeDumézil, Althussernd Claude Lévi Strauss.

On the ndian scenethe firstystematicfforto identifyheschoolsofinterpretationf Vedicmyths, ot to speakaboutthe nterpretationfsinglewordsand concepts,was madebyYãska, as early s the sixth entury . C.,as is seen from hemeaning fVjrtra e attempted. He identifiedwomainschoolsof interpretation,iz. theNairukta etymological and theAitihäsika

( Nir. И. 17). About the first hereis no problem, nd there s a flood of

examplesgivenbyYãska, whohimselfbelongedto the Nairukta chool. Inthe case of Vftra,the name is connected o the rootvr," to cover " to

conceal"

; and itwas stated hatVjrtras (he personificationf the cloud ashe concealsrain-waters. Etymologymaybe taken s thebasis of theconceptof the Albcoverer in the case of Vrtra and this lso goes well with helatermythicaldeas thatVjrtrahad enveloped he whole sacrificialmaterial1;also thathis body concealed fireand Soma, whichwerereleasedbyIndra2and 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. Šat. Br-.. 6. 3.8ff. hismotifsnot estrictedo theVrtra

myth.Thus,none f hemythsecordedyW. T. Olcott,un-lore f All AgesNewYork-London,914, . 14ff.,he un nd hemoon ome ut of hebody f heFather-in-lawilled yhis on-inaw n contest.The samemotifs seenwhen hetwinsborn romhe amewomb body are aid o be the un and themoon,ntale rommong heKootenayivingntherockymountains,laude éviStrauss,MythndMeaningReprint,hetford,orfolk980 1978,p.28.







112 AtìOkt : Amrtämahotsava olutile

enveloper;nd

etymologyalls hort f the whole

concept.About theterm

aitihãsika, and itihãsa for that matter, he Vedic and the atertraditionsnotclear. Yãska says that accordingto the Aitihãsikas Vrtrawas a realperson, heson ofTvastr. However,his exploitsand thedescription f hiselderbrother,Visvarüpa,hardly o wellwith he contention freality. For

example,thefact hatVisvarüpahad threeheads, and thateach one produc-ed a differentirdwhen it was cut by Indra,5pushes the account awayfrom eality, rfactuality. The same is true with Vrira fromwhosebodySoma and fire are said to come out whenhe was dividedby Indra. This

wouldindicate, hat the Aitihãsikas ncluded such fanciful ccounts lso initihãsa. The account of the girl Apã ã who is said to havebeendraggedthroughhethreeholes byIndrato render er ustrouswas also an itihãsa inthis ense.4 It has to be noted, thatYãska does notstopaftermentioningthese chools he adds a third pinion, supportedbythetexts,whichrefersto Vjrtras a serpent Nir. loc. cit. ahivat tu khalumantravarnã rãhmana-vãdãs ca ). Vrtra ppears in a twofold haracter as a controller f watersand also as a serpent or, actually, s a water-controllingerpent. Theconcept s a mixture f twoconcepts one, ofa real person, fwe follow he

lineof theAitihãsikas, nd two, of his identification ith he water-controll-ing serpent. It has to be noted,thatVrtra s not purely water-controll-ing serpent,noris he a pure ' enveloper. Association f these wo aspectswith Vrtra is seen sometimessimultaneously but, at times, they areseparated. Each of these two aspects has parallels in folk-lore and theyare notrestrictedo Vrtra. Control of watersby aquatic animals such asserpents, rogsand crocodilesis a common thing n folk-lorendmyths.6Byplacing hesevariedopinions ide byside,Yãska appearsto givea clue tohis understandingf th; processofmyth-makingherein mythical lement

is superimposedn an independentntity.On the wasternhorizon,and in the moderntimes,the attemptto

searchforthemeaningof a mythhas been in progress otably incetheendof the astcentury. By the end of the lastcenturynd in thebeginningfthepresent enturyhe effort as tremendous,nd some of thescholarswhocontributed o it are mentioned bove. As far as Sanskritmythologysconsidered,Max Müller dentified he followingchoolsof interpretationy

3 Taitt. aw II. 5. 1.1ff.J im.Br. I. 156 or ariousruitsomingut f he luidsthat ushedut f hemouthf ndra.4 Cf. Introductiono Rv VIII.91bySayanaatretihãsam-eaksate.Here, gain,

themotiffvariousreaturesomingut f he odyofApälä ispresent.6 SeeDange,Sadashiv ., Legendsn theMahabharataDelhi,1969, . 293 And-rew ang,Myth, itual andReligion, ondon,913, .43.







Ďange : MeaningofMyths nd the VecîicContext 173

theendofthe ast(nineteenth

century,s :

(1

Etymological (2)Analo-

gicalor comparative and ( 3 ) Psychological,Anthropological r Ethnologi-cal.6 But, amongthescholarsof the widerfieldhe came to be soon lookedupon as a " comicfigure withhis insistencen the naturalistic nterpreta-tion.7 These other cholarstried n variouswaysto come to the meaning fmyth. Bythebeginning f thiscentury razer dominated he.field, ssertinga close relationship etween itual nd myth, dducing xamplesfrom verywide range. He based his researches on comparative studyof religiouspractices. However,the associationof ritual nd mythwas notacceptedby

all scholars and this s also true insofar as myths nconnectedwithritualsare seen. As scholarsofcomparative tudy fmyths re well aware of, the

ritual-mythheory ota jolt from he theory ropoundedbytheFunctional-ists, ed by BronistawMalinowski,and followedby others. Malinowskiwas notaverse to believing hat n somecases, myths, r stories,could havea ritual-context. n fact,his idea of " sacred stories and " chartered

myths admits such a relationship.8However,forthe functionalists,hesubstratum fa mythencases the real meaning and thishas to be seen nsomefunction fthesociety n which hemyths current. The functionalist,

and the structuralistpproach, is verymuch similar o theapproachof theFreudianswhosetheory f dreams ame to be extended o therealmofmyths.It was believed, nthisnewtrend,thatthenarration fthemythsnot to betakenas thebasis of themeaning, r the message,of a myth. As a dreamis notthe exactreality,buta fancifulombination f manyreal experiencescollected nthe subconsciousmind,so themyths the recordof the subcon-scious of a societyformulatedn its tradition. For Karl Abraham,mythwas a fragment reserved rom the infantilepsychic ifeof a race, whileadream was mythfor the individual and Jungstates that myth-makers

thought n the samewayas we stillthinknourdreams.9 The structuralistsworked bout the samepremise nd underminedhenarrative art fa myth,using tonlyas meansto tracethesubstratum, r the subconscious. WhenClaude Lévi Strauss aid that mythsthink themselvesnthe humanmind,0

0 Chips rom GermanWorkshopVol. V,London, 907, .xvii.7 PeterMunz,WhenheGolden oughBreaks, ondoa ndBoston,973, . 81.8 Mythn Primitive sychologyLondon, 926, eferredo byG. S. Kirk,Myth,ts

Meaningnd Functionsn Ancientnd OtherCultures, ambridgeni.Press,BerkeleyndLosAngeles,970, .20.

0 Forthese pinions,igmundreud,nterpretationfDreams Standardd. 1953(1900); OnDreams, 954;OttoRank,Myth f heBirth f theHero,1909, ng.Tr.1913;C. J.Jung, ymbolsfTransformation,911,ng.Tr., th d.1956.

10 Mariam lucksmann,tructural nalysisnContemporaryhought,ondon ndBoston, 974, . 82 (ClaudeLévi Strauss, ythologiques,, Paris, 964,p. 20);PeterMunz, p,Cit p. 5.







174 ABORI : Amriamahotsava olume

his idea was thatamyth ets

formednthe humanmind theminddoes notform t and thisformations due to subconsciousinfluence f the experi-encesthat societyhas had through he ages. This wouldmean, thatnoone individual makes a myth. It should be noted, thatthe notionofstru-cturalism oes not startwith Lévy Strauss. It was a Frenchfashion nd isknown rom heearly wenties fthiscentury. Amongthe Sanskrit cholars,Dumézil said thatonlya groupof facts,or structures, as a meaning, ndthatthere re similarities f concepts and social structures hroughout heancientworld.1 Althussernd Lévi Strauss speakofthe 'problematic' of

a myth,which s thecentralmessage and, it could be comprehendedhro-ughsubmittinghemyth odivisions nd structures.But,with ll theeffortsof Lévi Strausswithhishorizontal and perpendicular olumnizationof thematerial fthe narration fa myth nd itsversions,1-hismethod could notbe a safekeyto unlockthe4message ofa myth. However, the suggestionthatthere s no trueversion fa myth,meaningthat one mustgetas manyversions fa particularmyth s possible,has beenaccepted. The problem,however, s : What s thebasis oftaking particular ccountas a m:re ver-sion ofa mainaccount thewholeaccount,partof an account,or even the

motif ound n theaccounts Lévy Strauss is clearlyconfusedas regardsthis problem see his lectures n 1977, Myth and Meaning) and bundlesvarious ccounts,such as theHare-lip, birthwith egscoming out first ndthetwins,together.1' He also shiftshis original position fcollecting hemyths or accounts from he sametribe o collecting hemfrom ribes ivingapartwith plea thattribes an migrate. But, this is also what theolderscholars, ikeDonald Mackenzie,stated.13 Structuralism ecame unsafe nthe hands of Lévi Strauss, as Mariam Glucksmannrightlytates 4< oanalysemyths, s Lévi Straussdo^s, mustrequirea good deal of individual

flair ndgenius .. ; but,he is so individualistic hat practically o one elsewould be able to learn themethod. 16

11 Mariam lucksmann,p.Cit., . 50.y¿ Structural nthropology,enguin,ondor, 969 1963), p. 312,where e anylises

themythfOedipus.13 MythndMeaningLondonndHenley,.30 pp.25-33.14 Ibid,p.26; cf. ... we have, s sometimesappens,o make jumpfrom outh

AmericaoNorth merica.. Many eople ave eproachedefor^his ind fpro-cedure."

in MythsfChinaandJapan,Londonno year), . 4, " Prospectiveoutes yland

and sea werehe avenueslongwhich ulturalnfluencesrifted. In his opinion( loc.cit ) civilizationsere evern state f plendidsolation.lü Op.Cit.,p.92 alsop.47,4ťLéviStraussries o make readingfhisworks diffi-

cult orhe eaders the ecipheringf myth asfor imself; andfurther,.48," The eadersexpectedowork treadingis books due o he igsaw aturefhiswriting.







Dange : MeaningofMyths dd the Vedic Cantext 175

Structuralism,ssuch, irrespective

f its useby Levi

Strauss oranyother cholar,could yetbe used as a method o go to themeaning fa myth;

and as itappears, these tructures,r ťbundles wouldultimatelyo to bringto thefore hevarious motifsn a myth. What creates theproblem s theexact nterpretationfthe4bundles ( thehomologues r the nversions,foneso likes to call them ), where ealitys often nthedangerofgettingingedwith ubjectivity. t is truethat,to know themeaning f a groupof mythsit is good to stick o the sameregion,or the same tradition a methodnotstrictlyollowed ytheschoolof Frazer ; but,eventhe tructuralistikeLévy

Straussshiftshis stand,giving sort of an apologisticexplanation, s wehavehinted bove. The fact s, that some of themythscollectedby LévyStraussfrom hetribes n thewestern oast ofNorthAmericaas far wayastheAlaskanregion nd those from he west coast of South America regionswideapart havemotifs imilarto thosefrom the Trobiand islandsofftheAustraliannorthcoast.17 This would indicate hatthe tribais havealmostthe sameproblems n a particular tageof life. This is particularly een nthecase ofcreationmyths. Some of the symbols sed in the narration realso alike inregionswideapart. Thus, theeyewas thesymbol f the gene-

rative rganamongtheancientEgyptians. The eyeof Atum s said tohavebeen a femaledivinity tearsfrom t are said to have created he humans.18Now, theŠatapathaBrähmana ( Šat. Br. speaksof theťtear givingrisetomanifold reation t various evels.19 The tear fromtheeyeof a bird helpsimpregnatehefemalebird none of the tories rom heHimalayanregion 20and thesame appearsto be thecase in thecreation account from the Dhak-kalwar ribe rom heKarnataka-Maharashtra egionof India.-1 Suchsym-

17Cf. he lementf ex nthe toriesfAsdiwalnd tsversionsnthe ccountsfWaux( AsdiwaPson andAsi-hwilrommong heTsimshianndians fextreme orthAmerica,nthe nehand, nd, n the ther,romhe robiandslandsn he toryf4TheHappy amily Thefirstetwas collectedyFranz oas,and used ymanythe econd yR. M. andC. H. Bernd,The Worldof the First AustraliansLondon,964. '

18 Rundle lark,MythndSymbolnAncientgyptLondon,959, .224,the ye scalled mostncientemalentheworld ; p.72 Atumays," Thegods createdfrom yweat butmankindsfromhe earsfmy yes ; alsop.93.

19 VI. 1.2. 1-9,whereheword sm probably»s chosen o work n tsetymologicalimplicationfrom as " to pervade) ; yet he ymbolf thefluid rom heeyecannot scape heexplanation,ore o in view fthe xamplestotherlacesnd

amongthereople.20 Herethevulture eeps and he ears hat all re drunkythe emale ultureshebecomesregnant.21 This eferences frompaper ead yDr. Prabhakarande t the NationaleminaronComparativeythologyarrangedytheDepartmentf Sanskrit,niversityfBombay,an. 7tho19th,991.







176 ABORI : Amrtamahotsava olume

bols and motifsresent

morereliableground

fortheprobe

of themeaningofa myth because, thenarration ixes heir imensions and theycouldbe

comparedwithother uchcases. But, whenone delves nto he ubconsciousthere s every ossibilityfguesstryingo ride the truth Thus, in the ase oftheAmericanwest oast myths spreading romAlaska in theextremenorth o PeruintheSouth insteadof believing hatthemyth s present-ingvarioustypes ftwins, omebeing trong ases and the othersweak, itis safer o stick o the narration ndmarkwhy hegirls selectmen that theycomeacrosson theway, and why hey re led to believethatthe youngman

theymeeton theway s to be taken as their real would-be husband. Thisway, theťmessage of thegroupofmythswould be in the ' problematic ofmarriage, ather hanthatofthetwins hough hetwins o presentn intere-stingphenomenon n many accounts'23 thepoint which cannot,and neednot,be discussedhere . LévyStrauss ays and rightlythat couple givingbirths o twobabes at the ametimeproduces wins but, two sistersgivingbirth o differentabes fromdifferentmen theymeet on theroad are alsosaid to produceťtwins as thesituation meeting n the road is thesameLikewise,thesamegirlgiving irth o a babe from hetricksterwho meets

heron theway, and one fromher real husband-god as she was told , isalso believed to producè 4twins And, then there is the argumentof" untwininghetwins in the case where he exact twinsdo notappear ( asin thecases above ). Further,n thestory fthepoor girlwho savesherselffrom hesack ofthedemonessbycoming ut, legsfirst,s also believed obçenactingthe 'twin' (two legsV Moreover, n the account of the haregetting islip splitdue to ths stroke f a cane givenbya girl,as she stridesoverthe og of woodunderwhich he harehas concealed himself so thathecan see hergenitals ) andutters n unsavoury emark,heexplanation iven

byLévyStrauss sthat, fthehare is cut alongthe split whollyand dividedthus,his twopartswould be taken s forminghe twins Well The expla-nation s both ntelligentnd ingenious yet,there s hardlyanybasis for tin thenarration. And, therecan be hardlyany doubt thateventhe sub-conscioushas to have substantial asis ofrealexperiences.

In connectionwith heproblem fthemeaning f mytht is necessaryto examine heopinionof PeterMunz. He suggestedthehistoricalmethod,

22 LéviStraussseenote 3 bove.23 ibid p. 25. Among ther ribes,heAruntalways illedhe wins.The Ainu fNorth apan layoneofthe wins; eeJ. P. Murdock,ur Premitive ontem-porariesNewYork,19571934),p. 34; P5; 464; 526; 578 J.G. Frazer, olk-lore f heOldTestament,ol. ll, 1918, . 132.

24 LéviStrauss, ythndMeaning,p.25-33.







Dange : MeaningofMyths nd the VedicContext 177

as he calls it and theapproach

is of "

Typological Interpretation. He

states hat t thebottom f a myth, r a series of myths f similarnature,there s often only a small degree of variation,from rationalevent oroccurrence. He saysthatthefirstmythical ormations oftenverymodestand shows almostno signsofextravagance r supernatural omplexity. Hetakes heexampleof thetheme fsacrifice, nd saysthat t theremotest astit is ust a simple tatementfan animalbeingkilled,and nothing lse. It isa truehappening. The event ends o becomea myth he momenta slightlyincredible eature as been introduced,with heprobablemodification fthe

beginning f the account as,"Once upon a time...".

5As he goes on ex-plaining urther, e saysthat n accountof factgetsturnedntoa mythwith

theembroidermentfnarrations. The processgoes on at everyrepetitionftheold account,and themyth rows. According o him thegrowthndicatesthe evolution f themyth ill thefinal theword«final has tobe, then, aken

only n a loose sense, as there s everyprobabilityf themyth rowingevenafterwards) account with ll embroiderments.These subsequentaccounts,with hedetailsadded freshly, e givesthe name ' anti-typeof theoriginalaccount. The processhas to be studiedhe says and this is the historical

method.He suggests hatthemeaning f themyth annotunfold tself nlessone starts rom he ast anti-type i. e. the astmythical ersion and under-takesa feed-back. He furtheruggests hat, nthisway, it is noticed hat n

original ccountturns urthermythicalt various stages ill t entersnto therealmofmetaphysics.Thinkingon these lineshe, naturally, ays that hisseriesofanti-typesfa myth or, ofreally heoriginal ctual event ) formsthe case for typology He stresses hatthehistoricalmethod f interpreta-tionofmythss based on suchtypology. But, for uch a study there houldbe availablea complete et of a mythnd itsanti-types. In this context e

says,

"

One of themoststrikingnd completenstances fsuch a

typologicalsystem tretchingroma ritual-mytharelydistinguishable roma naturalevent o a highly onceptualisedmetaphysicalystemsprovided n the ndianthought." According o him, from he Ijigveda throughhe Brãhmanas, nwhose" hymns ( ? ) the scienceofsacrifices elaborated,we pass on to theUpanisads on the thresholdof metaphysical bstraction. He says, "Allthese teps n the eries re extant nd provide herefore fullydocumentedexampleof thetransformationf nature ntomyth, hespecificationf mythintohighly etailed ymbols nd aphorismsand, finally, he transformationofthe aphorisms nto metaphysical oncepts. The communal epast s the

type; Sañkara'smetaphysics,heanti-ype".53'1

25 PeterMunz,WhenheGolden otigh reaks LondonndBoston973, .39ff.sçethe haptern" Typologicalnterpretation.

26 Ibid,pp. 6-47.23 Annals,ORI [A. M. ]







178 ABORI : Âmrtamahotsava olume

Apartfrom he factthat thisobservationof Munz about the Vedic

material s based on second hand sources obviously, ranslations, it doesnotholdgood forgettingt the meaningof myth. What s said about thesecond hand sources can be noted, instantly, romhis reference o the" hymns in theBrãhmanatexts. His statement s true insofar as one isabout to trace hevariousstagesof theoriginalmyth and there s no doubtthat some creationmythstendto verge on metaphysics or,wemay call,proto-philosophy but, a sweeping tatement f this sort canoot holdgood inrespect f all types fmyths, oris metaphysicshe natural ulmina-

tion ofa myth. Also thesuggestionhatthe astanti-type ould throw ighton the statusofthe initialmyth s unacceptable. The anti-type,s Munzcalls it, is a case of palimpsest,whichwould and often,does makea mythcomplex itcannotbe a surekeyto theunfolding f theoriginalmyth. Letus takean example. 1he Rgvedahas themyth fthe Father copulatingwith

ОГ,runningfter,his owndaughter Í. 71. 5 ; X. 61. 5-7 ), where hedaugh-ter s, obviously, he earth X. 61. 7 ksmayã ... sanjagmãnah). The Fatheris notspecified. Yet, thedeed is awkward and the Father is shot with narrowbyan archer,who is also not specified I. 71. 5 ). The AitareyaBr

( III. 33 makes a regular reation-mythut of this ccount and so does theŠatapatha Br. I. 7. 41ff. ; but, here wegetthe ritualdetail that theshooterof the arrow was Rudra and the Father was Prajãpati also the flesh ofPrajãpatistickingo thetipof the arrowof Rudra is not togowaste variousgodsare asked to eat it ultimatelyt is eatenby Brahmanaspati. This is themythical alimpsest or. embroidery,fwemaysay so withMunz ; and, intheactualritualthere s no mention fth^flesh indicating,most probably,the oss of the earliestphase of the ritual when an antelope was killed,28representingrajãpati, and the littleportionof its fleshwas eaten by the

priest, but a portion fthepurodãsa calledhereprašitra. Now, we couldsay, thatthePrajãpati- aughter ariation s an anti-type with Munz); andwehave a furthernti-typen thatPrajãpati s said to have become theante-lope and thedaughter he femaledeer ( Ai. Br. loc, cit. . We have furtherťembroideryin thePuranicversions Prajãpati (here, Brahmã) created abeautiful irl she circumambulated im as he looked at herand cast his

eyesto all thequarters e developedfourheads thegirltransformed erselfintoa bird and so did Brahmãforpursuing er she sought hehelp of theáiva-liñgaat the mountainAruçâcala; suddenly, iva emergedfrom the

27 Seemy aper» ProtophilosophynMyths J ofthe ndianMusicologicalocietyVol.18,Pt.2,Baroda, ec. 1987.

28 See mypaper,The Riddle f theBlackAntelope,"rof HandiquiFel. Vol.,Gauhati, 982.







Dange : Meaning fMyths nd theVedicContext 179

liňgaand was about to shootan arrow t

him,but was

pacified yBrahmS

(Skanda-P. 1.3. 5. 49-62 ).2) Now, this last episode is the 'anti-type' allright. But, can it stand surety o the originalmeaningof themyth s itoccurs ntheRgveda Further ariations aythat Brahma s thegod oflear-ning,and the daughters Sarasvatî,the facultyof speech. And a furtherstep ntothe realmofmetaphysics ouldbe to saythatthemyth uggests n-timate elationship etweenknowledgeand speech. But, thiswouldbe go-ing far astray. The fact is that the evolution f an account,or the latervariations f a myth, annot be taken as a surehelpto unfold tsmeaningn

theearliest orm. Thus, theso-calledhistoricalmethodhas to be used care-fully. One good point n thismethod s that one need not underminehenarration. There s a close similarity etweenthismethod nd that of thestructuralists.The structuralistsre space-conscious nd would ike to stickto thesameregion though his s notexactly rue,as we have seen above .So is, moreor less, thecase with he functionalists.The historicalmethodwould consider the time factor, houghnot chronology, trictly peaking.Again, it wouldnot leave ritual from tspurview, s is clearfromthemen-tion of the Brãhmana texts. However,the problemcomes when there is

similarityfmotifs nmythsn regionswid? apart. Thus, the motif f theFatherťdesiring' his daughterobtains also inone ofthenursery alesfromEngland,which s current lso in Ireland,Scotland, taly,France and othercountries.0 It is also seen inthe tale of Enki and NinbarsagfromancientSumeria and in theVedic and thaSumerianmythstis closelyrelated o thegainofwater in theVedic, with herain symbolised s ' semen ), and intheSumerianwith nundation.J1In certaincases, ritual produces mythand, on theotherhand, a myth s enacted s a ritual.8- This is markedpro-minentlyn a number fVedic myths. The case of the prâsitra mentioned

above is ust an example; and a veryweak one, for that matter. Certaingood examples reApãlã, Šusna swallowingndra n the form of a lump ofhoney nd so on, whsreritualwouldthrowwelcome ight n the meaning f

29 Forotherariations,eeDange, adashiv .,EncyclopaediafPuranicBeliefs ndPracticesVol. ,NewDelhi, 986,nder rahmäVols. -V,1986-1990).

30 G. L. Gomme, olk-lores an Historical cienceLondon,908, .50.81 For fullertudyf hemythf he athernd heDaughteree,Dange,Sadashiv .,

SexualSymbolismromheVedicRitual Delhi, 979, p.141-159.

я2 This act as to be acceptedven fone doesnotaccept heRitual-mythheoryntoto. E. R. Leach PoliticalSystems f High-landBurma,London ndCam-bridge,954),for xample,ays hatmyths the ounterpartfritual;mythmpliesritual ritualmplies yth,nd thatmythsa statementnwords,while ituals astatementn ctionbothre ymbolictatements.therswhohad alreadyaid thesame reJane arrisonndE. Durkheim.







Í80 ABORi: Arnrtamahotsavaolume

themyths.33

At timeswehave therecord faritual,

but nomyth and,

illsomecases, we havea mythical ccount it is misunderstood,ill we com-parethedetailswith case where here s no myth ut a ritual with similardetails. The case of thevirilemonkey Vrsãkapi ), who has beentaken tobe a fooland a buffoon yscholars, s one of the examples. But, themythbecomes lear fwe comparethedetailsfrom hehymn X. 86 withritual-detailsof immolationnd sacrificet theHorse-sacrifice.What becomesclearin this ase is that,the myth of Vjrsakapi nd theritual t the Horse-sacri-ficehavethefollowing ommonpoints ( 1 ) Bothshowsexual overtoneas a

necessary eature. The Horse and therueen at theHorse sacrifice re set na symbolic exual unionas the; riestschant the mantras. At the Vrsãkapihymn apt to be understood s a myth, thisdetail s at vv. 16-17 ( 2 ) Atbothsacrificial illings clear. In th?case of thehorse,there s a clearsacri-fice,while n thecase of thevirile pe, it is suggested t v. 18.:î4 The same isthecase with hesupposedriddleof a mythical fight at thehymn f Mud-gala ( ÇF X. 102 ; and scholarshave interpretedt as a rèalfightwhere ome' robbers weredrivenaway by Mudgala. The details to be noted are, awomanriding make-belief-chariot ( mithukrtamatham but the horse

is absent,and wehave detailsregarding bull, which s, obviously, ritual-bull. Thenthedetail of this bull being yoked to a wooden log, which iscarried o thenextboundary f the ãji

'( whichword was misunderstoods

a 'battlefield', but which, n reality) is the field of corn, the word ãjiservings a symbolnotto be taken n itsflat ensed5

The examples given above fromtheRgvedaare just specimens, ndcould serve o showthenecessity f freshly tudying he materialfromtheVeda and thePurãnas, in the light f the new andmodern heories ogo to

the innermeaningof a myth,whichis a

verycomplexformula. Thoughthere s no one keyto open a myth, ur guide couid be symbolicwords, inaddition o thecomparativemethod,without ndermininghenarration.

3:i For hemotif fswallowingn theVedic nd atermyths,eeDange, adashiv ..

Legendsn theMahabharataDelhi,1969, p,171ff. seethere heexpositionnthemythfKacaandSukra.31 Onthis eeDange, adashiv ..SexualSymbolismromheVedicRitual pp.34ff.

alsoby he ame uthor, edicConceptf 4Field andtheDivineFructification,Univ. fBombaybn., ombay,971,p.49-67.SeeVedicConcept.. ,pp.108-122,TheBull fMudgala.

meaning of myths and the vedic context

Documents