Anda di halaman 1dari 11

A NEW APPROACH TO THE INTERPRETATION OF

GVEDIC ARI1

The interpretation of the gvedic word ari, which Bloomfield 2 called the
enfant terrible of Vedic exegesis, has still to be considered far from settled, in
spite of Paul Thieme's masterly work on the subject 3 published in 1938.

The ancient Indian Vedic exegetists 4 explained ari as signifying vara


(potentate) or amitra ('not-a-friend'), it being obviously left to the interpreter to
determine from context which sense applied. Thieme discusses the many
different proposals advanced by modern scholars to determine the exact
meaning of this word, ranging from Bergaigne's miser/poor person to
Bloomfield's 'noble priest. 5

That the word carries at least two principal (and widely disparate)
significations has been commonly accepted. Thus Geldner 6, when translating
the RV stanzas containing this word, shifts from lord of rank / rich patron /
wielder of power etc. to rival/ great enemy / rich show-off etc. It was
difficult to understand how this strange bifurcation developed. Thieme
suggested a way out of this crux offering (A) 'Outsider ( Fremde with no
emotional overtone) as the basic sense of the word. From this there issues,
according to him, the sense 'Stranger (Fremdling) with (B) favourable
overtones of feeling, as well as (C) unfavourable overtones 7.

Precisely why the word remained as baffling as it ever was in spite of


Thiemes ingenious and estimable efforts can be fully explained only by
discussing each individual usage of the word, in the context of which his
renderings often appear inappropriate, at times extremely far-fetched 8. Leaving
that task for a future attempt 9, we shall concern ourselves here with indicating
what appears to be a promising alternate guideline for a re-interpretation of the
ari material of the gveda.

The one thing that is quite certain about the word ari in the RV is that it
consistently refers to a rich and powerful person 10, a chief of one sort or
another. In this capacity, the 'ari' appears in many hymns as a devout and
generous employer or benefactor of Vedic priest-magicians, the i-s 11.
Geldner, with his generally reliable intuition for apprehending the occasion
which formed the background of a hymn, has nearly always reckoned with this
1
fact. On the other hand, the grave drawback in Thiemes approach to the
elucidation of the word is that he has not brought himself to accept this
essential aspect of the meaning of ari in every instance of its usage.

However, as briefly indicated above, the picture of the ari which the RV
presents has another significant dimension. Not infrequently, the ari is a
potentate who is hardly desirable, a wielder of arti (malevolence) 12, abhimti
('striving to injure') 13, and the very opposite of the devout patron 14: a man
whose wealth was not willingly given away as gifts, as daki 15 etc.
Obviously, the ari in such instances could not have been the type of leader the
Vedic i-s regarded as a true representative of their culture.

It would not have been difficult to account for this double signification, had
ari 'meant chief (cp. Geldner's hoher Herr) and so was applicable to any
leader viz. also to a non-Aryan. Applied to an Aryan chief it would then mean
vara, applied to a non-Aryan, amitra. But this is at once ruled out, because it
is from ari that the ethnic designation rya is ultimately derived 16.
If we are thus precluded from seeing in ari the sense of 'leader', does that
exhaust all the possibilities for regarding the word as some kind of designation
for an Aryan tribal chief? That it does is obviously the implication of Thieme's
views, for he sees in the fact that ari is not consistently translatable as 'reicher
Herr' a formidable objection to the view that regards this as an approximation to
the original notion from which the two disparate senses developed 17. This
untranslatability might only indicate that the word did not carry the general
meaning 'chief; it cannot preclude the possibility that it may have been a
designation among some Aryan groups for the leader of a tribe or such other
unit.
However, to admit the possibility of there having been such a special
designation among some tribes, is to invite a rescrutiny of the early Aryan tribal
and magico-religious set-up, for the evidence of the ari-references would then
compel us to assume that there were circumstances or occasions in which an
Aryan chief appeared like a rival or enemy (amitra) to the high priests of the i
tradition, whose views are recorded in the extant Vedic hymns - and appeared
damnable because he did not conform to these views entirely.
To put the argument in another way: in view of the etymology of rya, we
cannot regard the amitra connotation of ari as a development of the application
of the word to non-Aryan chiefs. However the amitra association could have
yet developed if the ari-s were Aryan chiefs who were somehow unfriendly to

2
the i tradition. Two things are implied here - (i) ari might have been a term
for chief among some Vedic tribes, though not among all, (ii) the ari chiefs
were at one time viewed with disfavour by the i-s.
But the word rya, derived from ari, stands for all Aryans, not merely for a
section whose chiefs were called ari-s. However this need not be an
insurmountable objection to a view such as the above. The signification of an
ethnic or tribal term could have been narrow at the beginning; it could become
wider in a subsequent age. A pertinent case from the Indian tribal terminology
itself is the word Bhrata (= 'of the tribe of Bharata' originally; also used to
refer to the Kuru-Paclas in the period of the Brhmaas 18; later a term for all
India).
If the above line of thinking is permissible, and if there can be no intrinsic
objection to the view that ari may have been some kind of tribal designation for
a chief, though only among some of the tribes that later came to be known as
the Aryans, certainly the instances of the usage of ari deserve the closest
possible re-examination. The implication of dichotomy in the Aryan social set-
up then goes even beyond the tribal plane, in view of the above-mentioned
portrayal of the ari as a person to be despised because of his attitudes on the
religious and cultural levels. We cannot forget that it is said that the ari needs
guidance and chastisement 19, that he ought to have faith 20, that there is no
pressing of Soma in the ambit of his power and control 21. He is in particular
condemned for 'guarding his treasures' 22 - something totally unacceptable to the
i tradition with its ideal of princely generosity, especially towards the
priests 23. The ari thus could not have been even remotely compared to the
priests' favourite sri-s and maghavan-s. Thus the objection of Thieme's that if
ari signified chief, other words for chief should also share its variety of
signifcation 24 is certainly not tenable; for, if the variety was in the tribal com-
position itself; the existence of different kinds of designations for chief is not a
matter for surprise.
It must be stated that the RV seems to preserve more evidence than is
commonly supposed for assuming that the early Aryan tribes were not a
homogeneous and closely knit community in a cultural and religious sense. Of
course they spoke the same language or at least dialects of it that were mutually
intelligible (- the evidence of the extant documents stems from a single source:
the latter-day Brahmanical compilers; so it need not necessarily be regarded as
decisive either way). By and large they also worshipped the same gods. But
what are we to make of an instance such as the following, where a Vivmitra

3
poet - hence the member of a family of priests who had particularly close
relations with the famous Bharata tribe - plaintively addresses the institutor of a
ritual festival:
"Of Indra, the quick unconquered one, ask the wise priest, who is worthier
than your friends. He then goes on to say, addressing himself to Indra: "And
let our detractors say: Depart to another place/ you who offer worship to Indra
alone. Or let the ari and (his) folks describe us as well-off men, 0 Master. In
Indra's refuge we shall (yet) remain". (R.V. 1.4. 4-6) 25.
Not only does this passage raise questions about the identity of the ari who
takes objection to the i's exclusive 26 worship of Indra and wishes to prevent
him from receiving gifts - on account of his wealthiness 27 (a viewpoint that
could easily earn for the ari the description 'treasure-guarding niggard') - but we
are also puzzled by the reference to this ari's 'friends' and his 'folk (kaya -
that rather intriguing term, in view of its indubitable derivation from the root
k-, to plough). One is tempted to think that the aris people and his priests
(= friends, i.e., supporters) 28 must have been somewhat different in their
attitude to Indra-worship than was the Vivmitra i, called here the wise
priest 29. One would recall here the numerous allusions in the RV to devanida 30
(insulters of gods), anindr 31 (men who do not care for Indra) and
brahmadvia 32 (haters of Vedic priests) not all of whom were non-Aryans
certainly. One is also struck by the resemblance of the implication of this
reference to that of several other highly interesting passages in the RV. As an
example of this latter we may cite RV 4.24. 3-5. Here it is said of two warring
groups (yudhm via) that they both call on Indra's aid; one seeks his help at
the decisive hour (abhke, i.e., in the very sight of battle); the other offers
sacrifices in honour of Indra 33; then the cooked (meat) would score over the
rice cake 34, and Soma make a distinction between the presser and the non-
presser (i.e., the one who offers the Soma libation will gain the favour of
Indra) 35. It is clear that here the contending groups are both Aryan; for they
both invoke Indra - pre-eminently the god of Aryan triumph. But, to one party
this god and the distinctive forms of paying him homage mattered more than
they did to the other. Obviously one party invoked him merely as the god of
war, and this was something the i-s found unacceptable. Many other examples
of this kind of statement can be adduced 36, but hopefully this is sufficient to
show that we should by no means minimize the importance of the evidence

4
regarding the cultural diversity of the early Aryan tribes.
RV 1.4. 3-5 discussed above seems to give us an important clue. That is
that the ari-led tribes could probably be counted among the so-called 'Indra-
neglecting men whom the RV hymns so frequently denounce. This would of
course be no evidence if it stands isolated. But it does not 37. What is more, it
also helps us substantially to infer the tribal identity of these ari-led groups,
inasmuch as it provides the further clue that the particular ari referred to found
cause to disagree with the practices and aspirations of a i of a clan of Bharata
loyalists. One is tempted to ask: Could we possibly put the Bharatas and the ari
chiefs in opposite camps culturally?
With this question before us we might study the three famous hymns that
mention the Ten Kings War in which the Bharata prince Suds fought against
a confederacy of kings. These hymns are RV 7.18, 7.33 and 7.83. In the war
that they refer to, the Bharatas under the name of Ttsus, were on one side,
while against them were ranged a large number of rya as well as Dsa tribes.
From 7.18 we learn that among the rya enemies of the Bharatas in this war
there were the Anu, Pru, Turvaa and Druhyu tribes. 7.83 very significantly
describe these and other enemies of Suds as "ten kings who do not observe the
sacrificial cult 38. Equally significantly 7.18.16 calls them "the party that does
not know Indra 39. 7.18.13 further refers to the ritually unacceptable speech of
the Pru chief (he is called mdhravc 40). Most important of all, 7.83.5 refers to
the ari, saying "the evils of the ari, and the ill-will of (his) envious men,
torment me 41- which one may take as a reference to the leading ari prince in
the confederacy of 10 kings and the (unorthodox?) priests 42 who, as was
customary in those times, supported these kings with magical incantations
etc 43. When we consider all these facts, it seem best to render the 7.18.7
reference to Suds' victory as follows: "For the benefit of the Ttsus did Indra
bring the Arya's (possessions) of cattle (anayat... aryasya gavy ttsuhhya) -
assuming that gavy stands for gavy vasni 44 and that arya (probably as a
collective singular) refers to the Prus and others exclusively, as opposed to the
Bharatas.
If this interpretation of the situation depicted in the hymns on the Ten
Kings' War is correct, then the ari-led tribes must have been the Prus and
others referred to in these hymns. In fact a string of other references lead us in
the same direction, notably the allusions to the ari in RV 4.38, 5.33 and 8.19.
Stanza 36 of RV 8.19 quite explicitly identifies the Pru prince Trasadasyu as
"an ari-scion, exceedingly generous as patron of the ritual house 45.
This last reference enables us to understand that aspect of the ari-material
5
to which we referred at the very outset - namely that the ari is often depicted in
a distinctly favourable light, as a generous benefactor of Vedic priests. It is not
possible to clarify wholly the factors that led to this development, unless we
embark on a study of the tribal inter- relationships of the RV period and also of
the story of priestly loyalties, influence and flexibility which appears to lie
behind the unification of a collection of loosely knit tribes into a single rya-
vara with one dominant magico-religious system of divine worship and ritual
practices. Suffice it to say that the evidence suggests a trend in this direction
after internecine conflicts culminating in the Ten Kings War. Clearly
Trasadasyu belongs to this later period.
This is also the impression that one gathers when reading RV 4. 42,
especially in the illuminating interpretation given to it by W. Norman Brown46,
according to whom Trasadasyu is there celebrated as ''a demi-god, the gift of
(both) Indra and Varua to Purukutsa's wife 47, who apparently bore him when
his father was in captivity. This version of Trasadasyu's birth reads like an
attempt to make this "terror of the Dasyus" acceptable to all segments of the
'Aryan' race. It is a remarkable fact that his praises are sung in no less than three
books of the RV, those of Gautama, Atri and Kava - and in a manner that
suggests that he was known to these singers at first hand 48. With him as the
head of their tribe, the Prus could certainly not be regarded as ayajvan-
anindra- or mdhravc- derogatory terms that the singers used to indicate the
Prus' position outside the orthodox fold in an earlier age.
Its complexity, as well as its abundance, does not allow one to treat the ari-
material fully in the compass of a short article. For this reason we have to
refrain from entering into a detailed discussion of the third important point that
emerges from a fresh study of this material - namely that many usages of this
word become explicable when we assume that in these cases we have a
portrayal of tribal chiefs as host-institutors of competitive festivals 49, from
whom guest-contestants attempted to win the rich stakes 50 that were offered. In
this situation the ari is very much on a par with a rival or opponent 51. The scene
must have been, inter alia, one of competitive ritual acts (cp. vihava / vivc etc.,
'invoking from all sides') 52 where the priests who ritually supported the
competing princes hoped to attract the gods away from the ari's rites to those of
their own sri or sri-s 53. The reference to the ari's ritual acts in these contexts
could lead one to the assumption that the ari is here portrayed as a priest 54. This
need not necessarily be correct. For, the ari's ritual acts can just as well be what
he got his priests (- cp. the ari's friends, the ari's men etc. in various references
of the RV) to perform for him.
The above discussion was intended to give an inkling of a new direction
6
which appears feasible in the attempt to unravel the tangled skein that is the ari
material of the RV. When we pursue this line of inquiry, it appears that (i) ari
in many gvedic references designates a chief of some Aryan tribes whom the
Indra-worshipping Soma sacrificers at first despised and presented in an
unfavourable light; (ii) in a large number of other references the ari is presented
in a favourable light: this reflects a result of the process of tribal-cultural
integration which was going on throughout the Vedic period; (iii) in yet another
type of allusion, the ari appears as host-institutor of competitive (ritualized)55
festivals - and here he is in a position comparable with that of a rival or
opponent.
We must then conclude that it is best not to translate the word ari which
seems to take us back to vanished institutions of early Aryan tribal life, the fate
of some of which was probably sealed by the very tribal integration referred to
above. Classical Sanskrit does not understand the word in the same way as it
was understood in Vedic times because at a later age the cultural 'roots' of this
usage were not alive. As a matter of fact the post-Vedic sense of the word (i.e.,
'enemy') only tends to confuse us when we attempt to understand its usage in
the gveda hymns.

1
Originally published in ANJALI, O. H. DE A. WIJESEKERA FELICITATION VOLUME, Peradeniya,
Sri Lanka, 1970. pp. 88-96

2
J.A.O.S. 45, p. 160.
3
Thieme, P. : Der Fremdling im gveda, Leipzig 1938.
4
Nirukta, 5.2.2 on RV 1.150.1.
5
Op. cit. pp. 5-10.
6
Der Rig-veda aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche bersetzt. Harvard Oriental
Series, volumes 33-35. See, e.g., his translations of RV 1.9.10, 1.121.15,
1.122.14, 1.169.6, 2.8.2, 5.2.12, 6.59.8, 7.21.5 etc., etc.
7
Op. cit. p. 10 f.
8
Cp. the criticism of Thieme's view in Brough, J., The Early Brahmanical
System of Gotra and Pravara, Cambridge 1953, pp. xiii-xiv. But
Benveniste's theory which Brough regards as "most attractive" also falls far
short of the requirements needed for a satisfactory explanation of all
occurrences of ari. The theory is that ari is "the designation of the other
moiety of a society with dual organization. The word would thus denote for
any individual that part of the tribe into which he or she might lawfully
marry". But what are we to make of instances like RV 1.81.6, 2.8.2,
8.24.22, 9.23.3 where ari stands in contrast to dsvs? Or, could we
possibly think that ari (originally) meant "descendant of a legitimate
marriage union?

7
9
The present writer has, subsequent to this essay, written three papers/monographs where
these issues are dealt with in greater detail: (1) The Indra Cult as Ideology, Vidyodaya Jnl
of Arts, Sciences and Letters (Nugegoda, Sri Lanka), IX 1981 & X 1982, (2) Ideological
Religion, An Example from Early India, Kalyani, Jnl of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Univ. of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka 1982, (3) The God of War and Lavishness, State Printing
Corporation, Sri Lanka, 1996.
10
"ari ist ein aristos, ein Geehrter, Ausgezeichneter, Edler..."- Neisser, W., Zum
Wrterbuch des Rgveda, Leipzig 1924, p. 99. Cp. RV 1.33.3, 1.121.15,
1.126.5 (ari's cows); 1.81.6/9,2.12.4 5,5.2.12, 10.86.1/3 (ari's wealth:
veda, pui, martabhojana, puimad vasu); 4.4.6 (ari's splendour) 4.48.1,
6.14.3, 6.20.1, 6.36.5, 6.47.9 ( ari's riches: rayi); 7.60.11 (ari's wrath);
8.24.22, 9.23.3 (ari's worldly goods: gaya)', 1.169.6, 7.48.3, 10.76.2 (ari's
manly mightpausya, nma), 7.21.9 (ari's abhti), 1.118.9 (arya
sahasras vaam), 4.38.2 (arya carktya vjinam).
11
Cp. 5.33.6 (ari as tuvimagha), 5.34.9 ( Agnivei sahasras as upam ketum
arya), 1.9.10 (ari..indrya sam arcati); 1.122.14 (aryo gira); 3.43.2
(arya ia);
8.65.9 (arya.. .vipacita); 8.66.12 (arya savanni), 7.8.1 (aryo
namobhi), 1.150.1 (ari in Agni 's araa).
12
. Cp. 2.23.13 (aryo abhidipsvo mdha); 4.50.11, 6.16.27, 6.48.16, 6.59.8,
7.97.9, 8.39.2, 9.79.3 (ari's arti).
13
. 10.116.6.
14
. 1.81.6/9, 2.8.2, 6.15.3, 8.24.22, 9.23.3.
15
8.21.16,9.79.3,8.51.9.
16
. Mayrhofer, M., Kurzgefasztes etymologisches Wrterbuch des Altindischen
I. Heidelberg 1956, s.v. arya.
17
Op. cit. pp. 8-9.
18
Macdonell, A. A., and Keith, A.B., Vedic Index of Names and Subjects, s.v.
Bharata.
19
Cp. RV 2.8.2: Agni is "a splendid leader to the worshipper, who,
unexhausted, causes the ari to suffer exhaustion". (suntho dadue juryo
jarayann arim), 5.48.5: Varua as 'directing the ari' (to the right way of life).
Cp. Thieme, op. cit. p. 40 f., and discussion of yat- in Schlerath, B., Das
Knigtum im Rig - und Atharvaveda, Wiesbaden 1960, pp. 37 ff.; 6.24.5:
Mitra, Varua or Pan (?) described as "who forestalls or nullifies the ari's
will" (:aryo vaasya paryet). Cp. Thieme, op. cit., p. 53:"Er (Indra) ist der
Umgeher (-Vereitler oder berwltiger) der Gewalt des Fremdlings".
20
Cp. RV 10.39.5 (after recounting the miraculous deeds of the Avins in
stanza 4): "I shall declare your ancient heroic deeds in the presence of the jana,
so that this ari may gain faith, 0 Nsatyas": pur v vry pra brav

8
jane...aya nsaty rad arir yath dadhat. See Thieme, op. cit. pp. 38-39
where he translates "Damit dieser Fremdling Vertrauen fasse", discussing "Der
Fremdling ist Vertragspartner".
21
RV 10.86.1 :"They have lapsed from the pressing (of Soma), they have not
revered Indra as god, there where my friend Vkapi found enjoyment in the
nourishing riches of the ari: vi hi sotor askata/nendra devam amasata/
yatrmadad v-kapir/ arya puesu matsakh//
22
Cp. RV 8.21.16; 8.51.9 (Indra is one "to whom this every Arya that is a
treasure-guarding ari is a Dsa :.yasyya viva ryo/dsa evadhip ari//).
23
Gp. RV 1.180.6: He takes the booty, in order to make a generous gift, like
one truthful to (his) vrata ( mahe dade suvrato na vjam); 5.65.3: "Possessors
of good horses (go) forth for booty with good intent, in order to donate (it)
(svavsa sucetun vjam abhi pra dvane). The sentiment is widespread in
the RV and is most forcefully expressed by the depiction of Indra, the ideal
hero (divine), as the model of conspicuous generosity. It was he "who first
found cows for the Brahman" (yo brahmae prathamo g avindat l.l0l.5b) and
it was to "find cows that most battles were fought. Cp. also 1.51.3, 1.81.7,
1.125.7, 1.132.4, 5.30.7, 7.21.7, 7.26.4, 7.67.9, 10.23.2 etc., etc.
24
Op. cit. p. 9.
25
parehi vigram asttam/indram pcch vipascitam/yas te sakkibyha varam//
uta bruvantu no nido/nir anayata cid rata/ dadhn indra id duva//uta na
subhagn-arir /voceyur dasma kaya / symed indrasya armai// RV 1.4.4-
6.
26
Cp. 1.4.5c which Geldner, op. cit., translates: ''indem ihr nur fr Indra euch
ereifert. Cp. also 4.25.6 b: suve paktim kute kevalendra// (See Geldner's
translation).
27
subhaga = glcklich - Geldner; Thieme (op. cit. p. 37).
28
Indra, characteristically the earthly sri's parallel, is described as sakhi by the
is e.g. at 1.4.10, 4.25.6, 10.27.6. Conversely they describe themselves as well-
liked by Indra (e.g., priya: 4.25.5).
29
vipacitam : einen Weisen Geldner.
30
RV 1.152.2, 2.23.8, and also 2.23.14, 5.42.10, 7.104.18, 10.38.3.
31
2.12.5,4.23.7, 5.2.3, 7.18.16, 7.104.20, 8.100.3, 10.27.6, 10.48.7.
32
2.23.4, 3.30.17, 5.42.9, 6.22.8, 6.52.2/3, 7.104.2, 8.45.23, 8.64.1, 10.160.4
33
indrayante (4.24.4d) verlangen nach Indra -Geldner; indriya yajante
(4.24.5a) opfern dem indrischen (Namen) - Geldner.
34
pakti purosa riricyt: dann soll die Kochspeise den Reiskuchen
berbieten - Geldner, who adds, "die pakti ist offenbar das Bessere", referring
to Vjasaneyi Sah. 21.59. That pakti signified cooked flesh can be gathered
from 10.27.2c: am te tumra vabha pacni followed in stz 18 by a

9
reference to two groups, one that 'cooked' and one that did not 'cook': pacti
nemo na hi pakad ardha -10.27.18b. Cp. also 10.27.17a: pvna meam
apacanta vr and 10.28.3c pacanti te vabhn atsi tem.
35
Cp. 1.54.8, 4.24.5, 10.42.4, 10.160.4. Like 4.24 and 4.25, 2.12.14a and 15ab
also refer to "the presser of Soma and the offerer of cooked (flesh?)" as those
who will gain Indra's aid.
36
Cp. e.g. 4.25.6-7, 8.21.14-15,10.27.2/3/6/18, 10.42.4.
37
See, e.g, 1.33.3 with 1.33.4/5, 2.12.4 and 5c with 2.12.5ab, 6./10/14/15,
2.23.13/15 with 2.23. 4/5//6/7/8 10/14, 4.4.6 with 4.4.5/15, 5.2.12 with
5.2.3/9/10, 7.3L5b with 7.31.5a, 10.86.1.
daa
38
rjna ayajyava -7.83.7a.
39
ardham anindram -7.18.16a.
40
vidathe mdhravcam: using mis-spoken words in the vidatha, an occasion
with strong cult-associations. atapatha Brh. 6.8.1.14 characterizes the Pru as
an Asura-rakas and 3.2.1.13 illustrates the speech of the Asuras by showing
that they say he 'lavo for he 'raya - the kind of mistake that could have earned
them the epithet mdhravc. Mahbhya (Nirnayasagara Press, Bombay 1951,
p. 28) says that one purpose of learning grammar was to avoid this kind of
mispronunciation in ritual acts.
41
abhy tapanti m ghny aryo vanum artaya.
42
The arti etc. of the ari and the vanu: 4.50.11, 7.21.9, 7.97.9. Cp. with these
the ari/jantu/jana juxtaposition at 1.81.9, 5.33.2, 7.21.5. RV 8.1.4 seems to
provide a clue to the understanding of this kind of allusion: 'The conjurations of
the learned priest and of the aris men compete (with each other), 0 Maghavan"
(vi tartryante maghavan vipacito ryo vipo jannm).
43
Cp. 1.27.9: Booty to be won with aid of priests (viprebhir astu sanit);
6.53.10: Ritual song the winner of cows, horses and booty (goani dhiyam
avasm...vjasm); 2.24.3: Indra breaks the cave of Vala with aid of ritual
song (abhinad brahma valam); 1.71.2: The Angiras priests help Indra with
sacred songs, with their 'roar' (ukthai.. .ravea) etc., etc.
44
Cp. 5.79.7 rdhsi gavy.
45
mahiho arya satpati (satpati here similar in sense to sadasaspati of
1.18.6a).
46
Brown, W. N., ''King Trasadasyu as a Divine Incarnation" in C. Kunhan Raja
Commemoration Volume, pp. 38 f.
47
Cp. 4.42.9: purukutsn ha vm adsadd/ havyebhir indrvaru namobhi/
ath rjna trasadasyum asy/ vtrahaa dadathur ardhadevam//
48
In hymns 4.38, 4.42 (Gautama), 5.33 (Atri) and 8.19 (Kava).
49
See Gonda, J., "Skt. utsava - Festival" in India Antiqua, Leyden 1947, pp.
146 ff.
50
Cp. hita dhanam in numerous references in the RV, e.g. in the hymn 6.45.
An example for ari of such contexts would be 2.12.5; "He (Indra) reduces, as it
10
were, the ari's possessions, i.e., the stakes" (so 'rya pur vija iv 'minti), or
1.186.3: So that the patron, approved by the ari, may grant us refreshing foods
(ia ca parad arigrta sri). Other notable examples are 1.73.5. 2.12.4,
4.20.3, 5.33.6, 8.1.22.
51
Cp. 1.70.1: With song we shall win the many (quickening gifts? Cp. ia
above) of the ari (vanema prvr aryo man). With this rendering of man
instr. sg., cp. 2.24.9 vja bharate mat etc.
52
vivc: 1.178.4,6.45.28/29, 7.23.1/2; vihava: 3.8.10. There are also many
instances of the use of vi-vac- and vi-hve- as verbs.
53
3.43.2, 4.29.1, 7.68.2, 8.33.14, 8.34.10, 8.66.12 are clear examples of this
but there are several other important instances too.
54
Probably this is what Geldner means when he renders ari as 'Nebenbhler -
see his notes to the translation of 1.70.1, 1.71.3 etc.
55
vjasti (winning of vja) was by means of war and other contests. The ritual
overtones of the activity are indubitable. Cp., e.g., 4.20.2: Indra "shall
stand by this sacrifice of ours in the winning of vja" (tihti. ..ima
yajnam anu no vjastau); 4.25.8cd: "men that seek vja invoke (the aid
of) Indra, both they that dwell in peace, and they that fight" (indra
kiyanta uta yuddhamn/ indra naro vjayanto havante). On the
significance of the contrast of ki- with yudh- here, see this writer's "Yoga
and Kema: The Significance of Their Usage in the gveda", Vidyodaya
Journal of Arts, Science and Letters, 1/2 (July 1968), pp. 185 f. On vja see
Gonda, J. in Numen, iv/2 pp. 134-35 and Heesterman, J. C., The Ancient
Indian Royal Consecration, 's-Gravenhage 1957, p. 133.

11