L ECTURA COMPARATIVA P RETEST - P OSTEST

A. nAtuRe of the gods

The great majority of R̥gvedic hymns are dedicated to individual gods or to groups of gods. Following a classification articulated already in I.139.11, Yāska (Nir.

VII.5) divided the gods into three categories: gods of the earth, gods of the mid-space, and gods of heaven. This simple scheme has the advantage of being clear and the disadvantage of being misleading. For while the R̥gvedic pantheon includes deities who represent the visible realities and powers of the natural world, it is not fully composed of such gods. A better starting place for most of the gods is their names. As we shall see, the R̥gveda attaches great importance to the names of gods.

By invoking, varying, and meaningfully placing gods’ names in their verses and by echoing the sounds of those names, the poets bring about the presence of the gods, their epiphany. More than in any other single feature, the essential nature of a deity is expressed in the god’s name. The god is who the god is because the god obeys the truth embedded in that name. Thus the goddess Dawn is the Dawn because she adheres to the truth that she appears in the morning before the sun. The god Parjanya, Thunderstorm, is the Thunderstorm because he adheres to the truth that he sends the rain. To be sure, the meanings of the names of some gods, such as Viṣṇu, the Nāsatyas, or the Maruts, are unclear or controversial, and the names of other gods, such as the Aśvins (“Horsemen”), imperfectly represent their charac-ters. By and large, however, the names of gods define their natures and actions. This is one reason that the gods of the R̥gveda can appear to be flat, since they generally lack the complex personalities that the gods of classical India possess. But there is considerable complexity in the relations among R̥gvedic deities, in the fusion and fission of deities, and in the dimensions of gods indicated by different names and epithets.

Starting with their names, we can classify gods according to their different spheres of action. This categorization will be porous, since some gods cross bound-aries of domains and functions, and will be more orderly than R̥gvedic reality, but it gives an approximate shape to the R̥gvedic pantheon. There are at least five cat-egories of divinities. First there are gods of nature, the powers that represent and govern natural phenomena and entities, such as Sūrya, the “Sun,” Vāyu “Wind,”

Parjanya “Thunderstorm,” Uṣas “Dawn,” and Dyaus and Pr̥thivī “Heaven and Earth.” With some exceptions, the names of these deities are also words for the phenomena they represent. So, for example, the word sū́rya can signify either the

sun god or the sun itself, or, rather, it signifies both the sun god and the sun, since the two are not fully distinguished. However, these gods of nature do not act only within the natural sphere defined by their names, but enlarge their sphere of action on the basis of their natural characteristics. In I.115.1, for example, the Sun is called

“the eye of Mitra, Varuṇa, and Agni,” because the Sun, as he transits the sky, looks down upon the actions of human beings and observes whether they conform to the ritual and social principles governed by these other deities. In V.80.5 the light brought by the goddess Dawn disperses not only the physical darkness of night but also the “powers of darkness,” the dangerous forces at work within the world. And according to V.83.9 the god Parjanya, Thunderstorm, not only shakes the world, but also smashes evildoers. Thus the principle of hidden connections and corre-spondences allows the gods of nature operate in other spheres in manners analo-gous to their natural functions.

A second category of divinity includes those defined by the social sphere in which they operate. The most prominent deities in this category are the three principal Ādityas: Mitra, Varuṇa, and Aryaman. As detailed below, these gods represent the different principles that define social relations, and they ensure that human beings act according to these principles. As the gods of nature have functions within the social world, so these gods of the social world also have functions within the natu-ral world. They are associated with the sun, as illustrated by I.115.1, and Varuṇa especially governs the waters, granting them to those who uphold the principles he represents, withholding them from those who do not. In this way, the processes of the visible world become the assurance of the reality of the principles of the social world.

Still other gods are defined by an action or function that their names embody.

Perhaps the most obvious example is Savitar, the “Impeller,” who compels humans and other living beings to action or sends them to rest. Similarly, there is Tvaṣṭar, the “Fashioner,” Viśvakarman, the “All-Maker,” and various other minor “agent gods” as Macdonell (1897:  115)  called them. Perhaps fitting into this category, albeit awkwardly, are the Aśvins, the “Horsemen.” As the name of these two gods suggests, they characteristically drive their chariot, and their mobility is a signifi-cant part of what defines them. They ride to accomplish many purposes: to heal, to rescue, or even to facilitate marriage. As charioteers and riders, therefore, they move within a variety of places and spheres.

Fourth are gods who embody aspects of the ritual, a category dominated by the two gods who, except for Indra, are the most frequently invoked deities of the R̥gveda, Agni and Soma. Agni is the sacrificial fire and Soma the central offering at the principal sacrifice in the R̥gvedic tradition. The particular significance of the ritual gods is their accessibility to humans. Various gods can be present at the sacrifice, but Indra and other gods like Mitra and Varuṇa remain invisible.

Gods like the Wind, the Dawn, or the Sun are perceptible, but they are distant or amorphous. Agni and Soma, however, are visibly, tangibly present, right in front of the priests and sacrificers, and their presence can be reliably brought

about by human action. They are the representives of the divine within reach of humans, and therefore they can create the link between gods and humans upon which the life of both gods and humans depends. So, Agni is the messenger who conveys the gods to mortals (e.g., I.14.12, III.6.9, IV.8.2, VII.11.5), and he is the Hotar priest who brings humans’ offerings to the gods (e.g., I.1.1, VIII.60.1, X.7.5). And likewise, Soma descends from heaven to the human world (IX.61.10, 63.27, 66.30) and, when offered by humans, goes from these humans to the gods (IX.25.4, 39.1).

The last category belongs to Indra, who stands apart from all the other gods.

Although it might once have had other resonance, the word índra means only Indra, which makes it not quite unique but a still rarity among the names of gods. The greatest number of hymns, nearly a quarter of all the hymns of the R̥gveda, are dedicated to him. This preeminence in the R̥gveda is not surprising since the soma sacrifice is primarily a sacrifice to Indra. Indra and Vāyu are the first of the paired divinities who receive soma in the morning; Indra alone or with the Maruts receives soma at midday; and, at least according to some R̥gvedic traditions, Indra and the R̥bhus receive soma in the evening (cf. IV.35.7). Thus, even though the soma sacri-fice gradually incorporated other rites and other gods, Indra and the offerings to Indra remained central to it.

B. deVAs And AsuRAs

Beginning with the Vedic prose texts, one of the most enduring mythological struc-tures is the perpetual conflict between Devas (devá being the Sanskrit word for

“god”) and Asuras, with the two (almost) balanced groups contending with each other in numerous myths and myth fragments in all sorts of situations. The Asuras are, as it were, the anti-Devas, with negative traits exactly corresponding to the posi-tive ones possessed by the Devas. In the various combats depicted, the Devas always prevail, but only barely. This conflict continues to be prominent in the post-Vedic religious landscape, as in the well-known story of the churning of the ocean of milk in which the two moieties fight over the treasures churned up.

An apparent mirror image of this paired opposition is found in Old Iranian in the Avestan texts, where ahura, the direct cognate of Sanskrit ásura, is the title of the head of the pantheon, Ahura Mazdā “Lord Wisdom,” and the daēuuas (exact cognate of Sanskrit devá) are the enemies of all that is good. Although it has always been tempting to superimpose the Avestan and middle Vedic situations upon each other, the R̥gveda makes serious difficulties. There the term ásura is generally in the singular, used as a title (“lord”) in a positive sense, and is often applied to divini-ties who are otherwise identified as Devas. A particularly striking example is found in VIII.25.4 where Mitra and Varuṇa are called Devas and Asuras simultaneously (devā́v ásurā “[the two] Devas, [the two] Asuras”). The Asuras as a defined group only begin to appear in the late R̥gveda. For further discussion see Hale (1986). The

history and significance of the Avestan/post-R̥gvedic mirror-image pairing of the two terms remain unclear.