The Acorn quotes Rajesh Kochhar, an astrophysicist who wrote a book back in 1999, on the Vedic people. This post is inspired from the excerpt at the Acorn’s blog, where Rajesh Kochhar derives several conclusions from a few Rg Vedic slokas.

I have read a few reviews of Kochhar’s book , not the book itself. This post is an attempt to record my own understanding of some of the issues surrounding the interpretation of the Rg Veda.

The Aryans and Ancient Persians

From the same post in the Acorn,

…the institutions, customs and ways of thought of the Vedic and the Avestan people are so similar that there can be no doubt the two peoples are very closely related.

Absolutely. Although it is not wholly necessary, I feel it is not out of context to provide some scholarly information.

Some scholars today conclude that the ancient Persian culture owed originally to the Vedic culture. David Frawley, in his classic Gods, Sages and Kings says that Persians

…ruled along the Indus at times. Vedic and Hindu culture similarly included eastern and northern Afghanistan and sometimes penetrated further west. Thus Afghanistan had both a Persian and Hindu influence. By the many references to this region in the Avesta… it appears that the Persians first came from Afghanistan, a region of Vedic influence. Zoroaster had as his first and greatest patron King Vishtaspa of Bactria (Balkh), and he also died in this region.

The ancient Persian religion, language, and culture called itself ‘Aryan’ and is very close to the Vedic, so much so that a common origin is necessary for both. In the … Zoroastrian religion, the term Asura, is changed by a sound shift to Ahura, becomes the main name for God as Ahura Mazda. Deva as Daeva comes to mean “undivine” or “demonic.” This is opposite to the shift of meanings in the development of the Vedas, wherein Asura comes to mean demonic and Deva retains the sense of divinity.

… Ahura Mazda is equivalent to Vedic Varuna… Ahura Mazda is associated with Mithra, as is Varuna with Mitra…. the Persian religion is thus more a religion of monotheism, yet it still reflects much of the universality of the Vedas.

With so much in common, it is not unsurprising to find these to be closely linked. It actually goes deeper than that. Frawley contends–in the same book–the Rg Veda as a possible source for ancient Persian religion.

The Persians appear originally … as Vedic warriors of Kshatriyas who broke off from the main Vedic culture at some point of the Deva-Asura… conflict. The opposite meaning these terms [Deva as Demonic in Persian and vice versa as noted above] gained was not an accident but reflects this division between Aryan peoples. Yet while the two terms … were used in opposite senses…. the duality of these terms reflects a common idea of a conflict between truth and falsehood, and between spiritual and worldly people…. the original unified Deva-Asura idea of God found in the Rig Veda later became a God-demon idea as the conflicts between the priestly and warrior classes grew, along with the general corruption of society.

We should note that language in origin has a dualistic nature. The root, ‘div’ for Deva or God also means “to play” and in the Persian came to mean “to deceive.” Even in Sanskrit, ‘div’ also means a game of dice. The root ‘as’ for Asura means “power” and in the later Vedas stood for power in the … sense of brute force…. Divisions of people are reflected in such divisions of language. [..]

The Persian religion reflects a later date than the Rig Veda in a number of ways. It does not appear in the form of earlier imagistic ancient religions like the Vedic or the Egyptian but has a strong aniconic form like the later Judaic, Christian and Islamic.

Frawley’s mention of the break-away warriors is corroborated by the Dasharagna Yuddha or the Battle of Ten Kings. This battle forms one of the central themes of the Rg Veda and is almost similar in proportion to the Kurukshetra war. It is also key to understand much of the geographical shifts that occurred in the general area of Northern India, Afghanistan, and Iran.

The Problem of Interpretation

In an earlier post, I stated that Vedic Sanskrit is different from conversational/poetic Sanskrit. The Vedic language is primarily symbolic, and any attempt to render a literal translation is faulty. More importantly, you can take almost any Vedic verse and translate it to mean whatever you want it to mean. Some portions of the Vedas themselves offer clues on interpretation.

There is general agreement that the term Asura means “demon,” “wicked,” “ungodly” and so on. However, Asura when expanded means, Asoon raanti Iti–”that which bestows/delivers breath.” The Rg Veda states also that Devas and Asuras are the same, derive from the same source, in this verse: Mahat Devanaam Asuratvamekam–Devas and asuras originate from the same source, (which is) Mahat (the Great Principle, Sacred Knowledge, Spirit, etc).

What the Vedas Stand for

The bulk of the Vedas are religious/spiritual texts that tender prayers to the entire cosmos. Majority of Vedic hymns celebrate creation, and its every facet. They praise, and honour some of these as Gods. Equally, they question, probe, inquire, and finally arrive at universal solutions such as the much-revered Upanishads.

That’s all they do because the Vedas primarily fall in the spiritual domain.

The Vedas also deal with some secular topics such as sabha (political assembly), raja, parishad (akin to a constituent body), tax, war descriptions (e.g. the Dasharagna war), spy systems, and family/social rituals. But these are few and aren’t prescriptive in nature. This is understandable because the main object of the Vedas is worship, not secular life.

It is therefore erroneous to try and find information related to statecraft or politics in a place that doesn’t deal with it. Which is the main issue I have with Rajesh Kochhar conclusions. He says:

The Rig Veda also contains strands of a competing philosophy which glorifies might. Rta is represented by Varuna, who is called wise Asura, the wise lord (Rv 1.24.14) whereas the symbol of power is Indra, who is called sahasra-mushka, “with thousand testicles” (Rv 8.19.32).

This is patently incorrect. There’s no “competing philosophy” in any part of the Rg Veda. The Rg Veda–like all other Vedas–views the entire cosmos as an inclusive, unified whole. In its view, every creature–insect, animal, man, and God–has a distinct place and function. No creature works to usurp the other’s place. Likewise, each God has his/her own function to maintain Rta, the Cosmic Order, which Kochhar mentions earlier in the excerpt. Varuna is rarely mentioned alone in the Rg Veda. He is almost always accompanied by his twin, Mitra. The two together are among the 12 (8 in the Rg Veda) Adityas. The Mitra-Varuna combination is important because omitting Mitra as Kochhar has done gives us just only one part of the whole picture. Curiously, Kochhar himself says later that

In this particular hymn, the poet refuses to make any value judgement between Varuna and Indra; he appeals to both for gifts and blessings.

Isn’t it evident why the poet does not make any value judgement between the two? Because the poet comes from the “unified whole” view that I mentioned earlier.

Understanding Indra and Varuna

Indra is commonly understood as the God of Rain, and God of War. Which is probably the reason for Kochhar to (erroneously) conclude that he only signifies might, which somehow is inferior to the “ethical” Varuna.

However, Indra is actually the God of Indriyas or sense organs. A good verse to illustrate this is the Medha Suktam which prays Indra to grant robust Indriyas… mayi medhaam mayi prajaam mayi indra indriyam dadhatu. His abode is the sky, which is logical given that he’s the rain God. Varuna is actually the God of Manas (Mind), and lives on the earth while Mitra governs our higher consciousness and lives in outerspace.

Rajesh Kochhar says that

There is however no doubt that in the Vedic heirarchy, Indra ranks supreme. He has the largest number of hymns addressed to him, nearly 250, that is one fourth of the total number. Varuna is invoked in fewer hymns than either Varuna or Agni (about 200 hymns) or Soma (over 100). But the hymns addressed to him “are more ethical and devout in tone than any others. They form the most exalted portion of the Veda.”

Indra is treated as the supreme God with good reason. Recall what I said about each having its own function in the Cosmic Order. From this, it is clear that might is certainly important, nay necessary, to protect and preserve the world. Everybody likes and respects a strong person. However, there’s a far more profound reason to treat Indra as supreme. As the God of the Indriyas, the Vedic seers recognized the importance of propitiating him to grant them control over the sense organs. His might therefore, is invoked to quell this internal fight of sense organs going astray. The story of Ahalya is another case in point. Ahalya means “barren” or “unploughable”(a=no/not halya=ploughed). Thus, Indra as the God of Sense Organs granted Ahalya the gift of children. Symbolically, the barren land became fertile due to the Rain God’s blessings. It is only natural that the Vedic seers assigned him the highest place.

Varuna’s function is limited in the sense that his scope is limited to govern the moral/ethical order, which is always fluid; it changes with time, society, and new developments. However, Indra’s domain is universal. As one who is passionately learning the Vedas, I can testify that every sloka is equally devout and exalted all the more because I can comprehend their meaning. I can only say that Kochhar’s claim that hymns addressed to Varuna are more exalted is merely his personal opinion.

Conclusion

Rajesh Kochhar views this portion of the Rg Veda in opposing terms, which is contrary to the spirit/worldview of the Vedas. He distinguishes between might and ethics, holding the latter superior. The Rg Veda itself treats all Gods originating from the same Source. It is surprising why Kochhar doesn’t mention this celebrated sloka in this context:

indraM mitraM varuNamagnimAhuratho divyaH sa suparNo garutmAn
ekaM sad viprA bahudhA vadantyagniM yamaM mAtarishvAnamAhuH

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is the heavenly, nobly-winged Garutman.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan.

Ethics and morals are useless without a strong force to sustain the society/environment that shapes the said ethics. Morals become one of the first casualties in an anarchic society. This is what makes Rajesh Kochhar’s claim that the Zoroastrian ethical model is better than the Vedic, unsustainable.

The point of departure between the Avestan and the Vedic religion lies in the emphasis placed by Zarathushtra on ethical conduct to the exclusion of everything else…At the same time Zarathushtra firmly and boldly rejected the worship of the warlike, materialistic Devas, that is Indra and his companions. Devas are amoral in the Rig Veda; they are branded wicked by Zarathushtra.

The Rg Veda does not contain any verse which say the Devas are warlike or materialistic or amoral. On the contrary, the Vedic seers invoke their help to overcome their troubles on the earth–both material and spiritual. Even assuming the Devas are materialistic, Kochhar omits all mention of the help they render to those who invoke them. Further,

It is only Indra who is disowned, not the Indo-Iranian heritage.

This is slightly incomprehensible. One can also argue that Zoroaster’s emphasis purely on ethics led to the destruction of Persian culture while the Vedic all-inclusive worldview led to its survival till date.