Page 426 - Lokmanya Tilak Samagra (khand 2)

VEDIC MYTHS-THE CAPTIVE WATERS 207
Prof. Oldenberg's explanation, though it gets us out of one
difficulty, lands us on another, which, to say the least, is equally
puzzling. If we, therefore, cannot suggest a better explanation, we
might as well accept the device of the Nairuktas and interpret
parrata or whatever other word or words may be found used to
denote the place of the confinement of the waters, as meaning a
cloud, and explain the legend of Vritra by the Storm theory as
best as we can.
It will be found from the foregoing discussion regarding the
Storm theory as applied to the legend of Indra and Vritra,
that it explains neither the simultaneous effects of Indra's conquest
over Vritra, nor the statements regarding the seat of the battle
between them, nor those regarding the time when it took place,
nor again does it allow us to take the words, used in certain
Vedic passages, in their natural sense; and yet we find that the
theory has been accepted as the basis of the legend from the times
of the Nairuktas upto the present. Why should it be so ?-is a
question, which would naturally occur to any one, who examines
the subject. It is true that the Storm theory fully explains the release
of waters as a result of the fight; but the release of waters,
is not the only consequenec, which we have to account for. There,
are four simultaneous effects of the war, the release of the waters,
the release of the cows, the recovery of the dawn and the production
of the sun. The Storm theory explains the first two and the Dawn
theory the last two of these; but the whole set of four is explained
by neither, nor could the theories be so combined as to explain
all the four effects, unless, like Prof. Macdonell, we suppose that
the Vedic bards have confused the two entirely different ideas,
viz., the restoration of the sunlight after thunderstorm and the
recovery of light from the darkness of night. Of the two theories,
the Storm and the Dawn, the ancient Nairuktas, therefore, seem
to have adopted that which adequately accounted for the release
of the waters and which suited better with their notion of Indra as
a thunder-god, on the principle that half a loaf is better than none,
and have ignored the remaining incidents in the legend as inex-
plicable, unimportant, or immaterial. The same theory has also
been adopted by Western scholars, and it is the only theory in the
field at present. But it is so manifestly inadequate that if a better
theory could be found which will explain most of, if not all, the