Artic Home of the Aryans by Lokamanya Bal ... - Mandhata Global

221
the Vedic myths, and may therefore, be termed what the lawyers call
direct; but in the case of mythological evidence only those who
accept the Nairukta method of interpretation, will admit the validity of
any inference based upon the consideration of these myths. It is true
that the Nairukta school of interpretation dates from ancient times,
and that modern scholars have accepted the method almost without
reserve, though they might differ from the ancient Nairuktas, like
Yâska, in the details of the explanation suggested by them. But still
when a new theory is to be established, I thought it safer to separate
the mythological from the direct evidence bearing upon the points at
issue, even when the two lines of investigation seemed to converge
towards the same point.
Now it has been recorded by Yâska that the Nairuktas explain
most of the Vedic legends on the theory that they represent either the
daily triumph of light over darkness, or the conquest of the storm-god
over the dark clouds that imprison the fertilizing waters and the light
of the sun. Thus when the Ashvins are said to have rescued a quail
(Vartikâ) from the jaws of a wolf, Yâska interprets the legend to mean
the release and bringing out of the dawn or light from the darkness of
the night (Nir. V, 21). His explanation of the character of Vṛitra is
another instance in point. Speaking of the nature of the demon, he
thus refers (Nir. II, 16) to the opinions of the different schools, “Who
was Vṛitra? ‘A cloud,’ say the Nairuktas; ‘an Asura, son of Tvashtṛi,’
say the Aitihâsikas. The fall of rain arises from the mingling of the
waters and of light. This is figuratively depicted as a conflict. The
hymns and the Brâhmanas describe Vṛitra as a serpent. By the
expansion of his body, he blocked up the streams. When he was
destroyed the waters flowed forth.”*
* Nir. II, 16. Cf. Muir’s O. S. T. Vol. II, p. 175.