Page 292 - Lokmanya Tilak Samagra (khand 2)

THE VEDIC DAWNS 79
or 'acting harmoniously' in IV, 51, 6, and VII, 76, 65. In the last
verse the poet again informs us that they ' do not strive against
each other' ( mitha!:z na yatante ), though they live jointly in the' same
enclosure' ( samdne urve ). Finally in X, 88, 18, the poet distinctly asks
the question" How many fires, how many suns and how many dawns
( u~hdsa!:z) are there?" If the Dawn were addressed in plural simply
out of respect for the deity, where was the necessity of informing us
that they do not quarrel though collected in the same place? The
expressions 'waves of waters', or 'men arrayed' etc., are again
too definite to be explained away as honorific. Sayap.a seems to
have perceived this difficulty and has, probably for the same
reason, proposed an explanation slightly different from that of
Yaska. But, unfortunately, Sayap.a's explanation does not solve
the difficulty, as the question still remains why the deities presiding
over the dawn should be more than one in number. The only
other explanation put forward, so far as I know, is that the
plural number refers to the dawns on successive days during
the year, as we perceive them in the temperate or the tropical
zone. On this theory there would be 360 dawns in a year, each
followed by the rising of the sun every day. This explanation may
appear plausible at the first sight. But on a closer examination
it will be found that the expressions used in the hymns cannot be
made to reconcile with this theory. For, if 360 dawns, all separated
by intervals of 24 hours, were intended by the plural number
used in the Vedic verse, no poet, with any propriety, would speak
of them as he does in I, 92, 1 by using the double pronoun etatz
and tyd!:z as if he was pointing out to a physical phenomenon
before him; nor can we understand how 360 dawns, spread
over the whole year, can be described as advancing like 'men
arrayed ' for battle. It is again absurd to describe the 360 dawns
of the year as being collected in the " same enclosure" and 'nor
striving against or quarrelling with each other '. We are thus
forced to the conclusion that the :B,ig-Veda speaks of a team group
of dawns, unbroken or uninterrupted by sunlight, so that
if we be so minded, we can regard them as constituting a single
long continuous dawn. This is in perfect accord with the statement
discussed above, viz., that many days passed between the first
appearance of light on the horizon and the uprising of the sun
(VII, 76, 3 ). We cannot, therefore, accept the explanation of
consecutive dawns, nor that of Yaska, nor of Sayap.a regarding