An Interpretation of RigVeda Hymn 7:103
One of the more fascinating Vedic hymns is the The Frogs.[1] It is interesting because of the multitude of complex issues that the hymn touches upon. Essentially, the hymn compares the chanting of frogs with the chanting of Vedic Brahmin priests. Is this a positive comparison? For a modern American reader, the meaning is not clear. At first light, one can easily imagine this hymn being composed by either a rival group of priests or disgruntled laypeople. If so, it seems as though the composer, if he was a non-Sanskrit speaker, could have been lampooning rival Vedic priests and comparing their nonsensical chanting, i.e. in Sanskrit, with those of frogs. Perhaps stanza five speaks to the perception among the composing community that Brahmin priests and all Vedic followers are mindlessly repeating what has gone on before them without truly understanding it.
Is this really the case? The transmission and content of the hymn question this surface analysis. In the poems, the Brahmin priests and the frogs were responsible for the upkeep of the world. They are both inspired by Parjanya, the god of the rainstorm.[2] Through the chanting of the frogs and the Brahmins the people receive real-time benefits.[3] Therefore, the hymn is can be seen as one of reverence, comparing the sacred and sustaining sounds of Sanskrit with the sacred and sustaining sounds of the frogs; each is drawing off of the power of the divine sound. In addition, stanza six emphasizes the frogs’ particular variety and essential unity, hardly a tactic of the lampooner. All content aside, the transmission of the text must be considered.[4] No matter the identity of the composer, the hymn was definitely transmitted through successive generations solely by Brahmin priests orally. Because the hymns were in the sole possession of the people potentially being critiqued, it is unlikely that the Brahmin priests would include a hymn that was overtly antagonistic towards them. It is even possible that the use of frogs is a rhetorical device designed to hook the listener with humor and hammer them with truth. So perhaps it is the case that the hymn was a positive one. The gulf of time, culture, and worldview is too great to bridge with the tools that accompany a surface reading of the text.
In order to unravel the meaning and function of the hymn, several things must be accomplished. First, the authorship of the hymn needs to be addressed. For instance, did the author speak Sanskrit? Was he from a rival group of indigenous priests? Understanding the author is crucial to understanding how he intended to affect his listeners. Next the perception of frogs in Vedic culture needs to be identified, in order to open a window as to how the listener would have understood the hymn. Once these preliminary questions are answered, the hymn can be analyzed in light of its context.
Rigveda 7.103 – The Frogs[5]
1. After lying still for a year, Brahmins keeping their view, the frogs have raised their voice that Parjanya has inspired.
2. When the heavenly waters came upon him dried out like a leather bag, lying in the pool, then the cries of the frogs joined in chorus like the lowing of cows with calves.
3. As soon as the season of rains has come, and it rains upon them who are longing, thirsting for it, one approaches another who calls to him, ‘Akhkhaka’ as a son approaches his father.
4. One of the two greets the other as they revel in the water that bursts forth, and the frog leaps about under the falling rain, the speckled mingling his voice with the green.
5. When one of them repeats the speech of another, as a pupil that of the teacher, every piece of them is in unison, as with fine voices you chant over the waters.
6. One lows like a cow, one bleats like a goat; one is speckled, one is green. They have the same name but they differ in form, and as they speak they ornament their voices in many ways.
7. Like Brahmins at the over-night sacrifice who speak around the full bowl of Soma, so you frogs around a pool celebrate the day of the year when the rains come.
8. Brahmins with Soma raise their voices offering the prayer for the beginning of the year; the officiating priests come forth heated and sweating. None remain hidden.
9. They have kept the order of the twelve-month as ordained by the gods; these men do not neglect the season. When the season of rains has come to, after a year, the hot fires come to an end.
10. He who lows like a cow has given, he who bleats like a goat has given, the speckled one, the green one has given us riches. By giving hundreds of cows, the frogs have prolonged life in a thousand Soma-pressings.
The Frog Hymn, Rigveda 7.103 – Preliminary Thematic Analysis
In order for the hymn to be decoded, one needs to sift through the hymn to uncover its central features. Once this is accomplished, then the core message can be illuminated and its role unearthed. The ultimate goal of this process is to discover what the hymn is trying to accomplish and how, from a literary standpoint, it intends to accomplish its goals. However, while temporal orientation is important, this orientation is not the primary aim of the first stanza. Instead, it introduces the hearer to the central theme of the hymn, the connection between the Brahmins and the frogs, and the connection between both of these to the divine, to Parjanya. [6]
“After lying still for a year, Brahmins keeping their view, the frogs have raised their voice that Parjanya has inspired.”[7]
This comparison between the frogs and the Brahmins is the most striking literary feature of the hymn. Already in stanza one there is an immediacy created between the Brahmins and the frogs. The entire hymn functions to compare various aspects of the priests and the frogs and ultimately to equate their actions. For instance, in stanza seven, the collecting of singing frogs around pools of water is compared with the gathering of priests around the bowl of soma.
“Like Brahmins at the over-night sacrifice who speak around the full bowl of Soma, so you frogs around a pool celebrate the day of the year when the rains come.”[8]
The nature of the comparison is not clear to the modern reader, as mentioned above. The only real way to see if the comparison is positive or negative is to discover the role of frogs in Vedic culture, which will be addressed in a later part of this paper.
The hymn opens by orienting the audience temporally to the end of the dry season.[9] At the onset of the rainy season, the frogs croak in unison.[10] This croaking is compared to the lowing of pregnant cows in stanza two, “like the lowing of cows with calves.”[11] At first light, it is not immediately clear why this audial comparison is made. Surely the hearers and composers of the hymn knew well what the frogs sounded like. However, stanza six suggests otherwise where the voices of two types of frogs are explained: “One lows like a cow, one bleats like a goat…”[12]
The comparison between the sounds of the cows and the sounds of the frogs can be either interpreted as indication of unfamiliarity with a new region, or a forging of a connection between the roles of cows and the roles of frogs. This question is significant because, depending on the answer, it shifts the location of the hymn considerably and will be revisited later in the paper.
Next, in stanzas three and four, the rainy season begins and two frogs approach each other.[13] Their voices co-mingle and this mingling takes place after water bursts forth, presumably from the sky.[14] The interesting aspect of this and the subsequent stanzas is the distinguishment between the appearances and sounds of the frogs; one is speckled: one is green; one sounds like a cow, the other sounds like a goat “One lows like a cow, one bleats like a goat; one is speckled, one is green…”[15] Why are these distinctions important? A possible answer, which will be explored in the next section, suggests the hymn is describing the mating process of frogs. The actions and sounds of the frogs being described are mirrors of the actions and sounds actual frogs make during the mating process.[16] However, the hymn also draws a comparison between the relationship between the green and speckled frogs with the relationship between the Brahmin teacher and student.
“When one of them repeats the speech of another, as a pupil that of the teacher, every piece of them is in unison, as with fine voices you chant over the waters.”[17]
Because it is very doubtful that the relationship between the teacher and student was romantic in nature or component, it is once again not clear what is being emphasized in this particular section of the hymn.
The next prominent theme in the hymn is the juxtaposition of diversity in form and unity in function. From early on in the hymn, there is a constant delineation of all participants. The frogs are categorized into green and speckled; the Brahmins are separated into the students and the teachers.[18] In stanza six, there is another comparison between the lowing of the cow and the croaking of frogs; the difference here is that the distinctions between frogs are added into the mix. The green frog bellows like a cow whereas the speckled from bellows like a goat.[19] The frogs differ in voice and appearance, one is green and one is speckled; but the effects of their croaking have the same effect, the bringing of riches to the people in stanza ten.
“He who lows like a cow has given, he who bleats like a goat has given, the speckled one, the green one has given us riches. By giving hundreds of cows, the frogs have prolonged life in a thousand Soma-pressings.”[20]
Stanza five describes the process of the croaking chorus introduced in stanza two. Their voices are referred to as fine voices the voice of many become one going so far as to say that “…every piece of them is in unison…”[21] Echoing the theme is stanza five, the hymn once again stresses the unity in diversity in stanzas six and ten. The culmination of this process, the linking of items of different form by equating their functions, is the equation of the work of the Brahmins with the work of the frogs. Their forms are wildly different, but their functions are the same. They both employ the divine sound to produce real time benefits, rain and cows, to the populace. After the above thematic analysis, we can sum up the hymn as follows. The hymn compares the chanting of the Brahmin priests during the Soma sacrifice with the croaking of the frogs at the end of the dry season. After this short survey of the central questions surrounding this hymn, these questions can begin to be addressed beginning with the perception of frogs in Vedic culture.
To and by whom was the Hymn Composed?
Before one can address how the hymn was used by its composers, one must be able to isolate and locate with relative precision the composers. One clue for locating the composers lies not only in the subject matter of the hymn and the very fact that it was included in the Rigveda, but also the way in which it explains its subject matter. These three factors help us locate the hymn’s composers both geographically, temporally, and culturally.
The very fact that the hymn is contained within the Rigveda strongly suggests that Brahmin priests were the composers of the hymn. It is certain that they were the ones that preserved and handed down the hymn in the form that we have it in today. The subject matter of the hymn places the composition of the hymn squarely in the monsoonal region of the Indian subcontinent. The regions to the north and west, such as the Punjab region do not experience the type of rains described in the hymn. Gautama V. Vajracharya, in “The Adaption of Monsoonal Culture by Rgvedic Aryans,” makes this point explicit by comparing the Rigveda with the Avesta. Vajracharya notes that in comparing the Avesta and the Rigveda, one notices “[t]he Avesta shows little interest in rainmaking, where as the Rigveda is full of prayers for rain…”[22] This can be explained through an appeal to geography. The Avesta was composed in a region where water came primarily from snow melts instead of rain.[23] The Rigveda, on the other hand, is obviously composed on the other side of the Hindukush.
Only after [the Indo-Irainians] moved to the other side of the Hindukush and proceeded toward the bank of the river Ganges did they experience entirely different meteorological phenomena such as the scorching hot summer and cooling monsoon as described in the frog hymn.[24]
Vajracharya goes further and claims that the hymn “informs us that in the later Rigvedic period the Aryans were already settled down in the typical monsoonal region…”[25] Another important locating feature that Vajracharya points out is that one can see evidence of a shift in culture through The Frog Hymn. Words, such as the word apas, were developing new meanings. Even their conception of time was in the process of being redefined to account for the newfound dry and wet seasons.[26]
The last line of evidence for the hymn being composed by Vedic Brahmins comes from how the composer describes the frogs in the hymn. In the second section it was mentioned that the composer felt it necessary to employ similes to describe the noises of the two types of frogs. Three times the hymn uses similes to describe the noises the frogs make. In stanza two the croaking is compared to the lowing of pregnant cows, a very specific comparison.[27] Later on in the hymn, in stanza six, comparisons to cows and goats are made through similes to describe the croaking of the two times of frogs mentioned.[28] What are the reasons behind the use of simile here? Although no reason can be given for certain, the use of similes does hint at a certain level of unfamiliarity with the region. When an author either gives over-generalized or incorrect information about a geographic region, such as the gestation of the mustard seed given in the Gospel of Mark, it is often taken as an indication of the author being removed in some fashion from the place the author is describing. When an author finds it necessary to describe elements of the environment that members of that environment would find to be commonplace, then it can be assumed that the author was writing to an audience that was unfamiliar with the region being described. It is possible that the author of the hymn was describing the sounds in terms of what his audience would find familiar, cows and goats. If, as Vajracharya argues, the hymn was composed during a time of indianization of the Aryans, the need to liken the sounds of a new realm to the common noises from across the Hindukush would be expected.[29] While this is by no means conlusive, the use of silime to describe the evironment in The Frog Hymn.
Given the above, we can conclude that the hymn was composed in the monsoonal region of India by the religious leaders of Indo-Iranians that were new to the region. They were new to both the frogs and to the new seasons. These Vedic Brahmin priests formulated the hymn not only to orient themselves to their new environment, but to also to secure rain. Now that the composition and composers of the hymn have been located, we can turn to exactly how the frogs were viewed by the composers in order to ascertain the mood of the hymn.
Perception of Frogs in Vedic Culture
As discussed in the second section, the central character in The Frog Hymn is the frog, with the Brahmin priests following a close second. Because of the constant comparison between the two, the tone of the hymn is contingent on the audience’s perception of frogs. If frogs are considered to be vile, stupid creatures and their croaking chorus considered galling, then this perception will be grafted onto the Brahmin priests. If, on the other hand, frogs are considered by Vedic peoples to be sacred animals, bringers of the life-giving rainy season, then a completely different reading of the hymn is in order. If this second option is the case, then the Brahmins are connected to that which sustains life. The question remains to which view of frogs did the composers of the hymn hold?
Alexander Krappe, in his article, “The Lunar Frog,” comparatively studied how indigenous peoples view frogs in order to respond to criticism of La Genese des Mythes, a handbook he coauthored in 1938, where he claimed that “the Australian frog is none other than the Moon.”[30] H. J. Rose denied this claim and even went so far as to challenge the method Krappe employed in his study. Thus, with “The Lunar Frog”, Krappe seeks to defend his position and method through a comparative study of the perception of frogs in indigenous cultures, including the Vedic culture. This study quite naturally leads him to the Rigveda 7.103. For Krappe, the Rigveda 7.103 accurately describes the activities of frogs at the start of the rainy season.[31] Krappe is not alone in this evaluation. Others have done in-depth studies on how well hymn mirrors the behavior of frogs at the start of the rainy season. Bender, in “On the Naturalistic Background of the Frog-Hymn, Rig-Veda 7.103,” approaches the hymn from a naturalist perspective and concludes that the hymn accurately describes the landscape at the turn from the dry to the wet season and additionally describes the behavioral habit s of frogs after the rains have come.[32]
He then describes how the frogs burrow during the dry season and “emerge by the thousands… at the beginning of the rainy season…”[33] After emerging, the frog mating season begins and it is during this process where the chorus of croaking originates. Bender describes this awe-inspiring process.
When a large number of individuals join in the performance, as is usually the case, the concert at the beginning of the rains is simply deafening and is audible miles away. This, in a very real sense, the croaking of the frogs ushers in the Indian rainy season, and by and easy causa causata is considered responsible for it[34].
Further, Bender addresses how well the stanzas two through six describe the actual mating process. He suggests that the puzzling distinguishment between the green and speckled frog is best understood by interpreting these as the denoting gender of the frogs. This would explain the interactions of the two frogs and also explain the difference between their voices. Male frogs have much louder and deeper croaks than their female counterparts. This may explain why the composer of the hymn felt it necessary to distinguish the call of the green frog from that of the speckled. Bender suggests that the larger, speckled frog was the male and the smaller, green frog was the female.
“It is more than possible that the colorings were considered an indication of sex. If the parallel holds, and it seems to hold perfectly, the male frog, speckled and deep voiced, approached, seized, and bred with the female, who was green and had less voice.” [35]
Bender quotes another text, the Visnuparvan, to bolster his case as it reads: “The frog having lain asleep eight months croaks with his wives.”[36] The attention to detail found in the hymn suggests that the composer had intimate knowledge of both the coming of the rainy season and the habits of frogs. This awareness and use of comparison moves one away from the hymn as a cultural critique.
If the hymn was not a critique, what was its function? Krappe interprets the hymn as a rain charm. The practice of using this hymn as a rain charm has direct evidence from as recently as 1871, where there are accounts of Brahmin priests reciting this hymn during droughts. [37] In parts of India at the time of the article, laypersons utilize frogs in personal rain charms. While most of his evidence comes from contemporary sources, it is Krappe’s contention that in Vedic times, frogs were often used to counteract fire from Agni.[38] Krappe then turns to other cultures and describes the almost universal perception that frogs were connected more than any other animal to the coming of rain. The perception of frogs among the Zunis of New Mexico and the indigenous populations in Chile, Bolivia, and Tibet, and others all were similar, although varied.[39] The particulars in each region were different, but the connection between frogs and rain held firm.
In “On the Naturalistic Background of the Frog-Hymn, Rig-Veda 7.103,” Harold Bender acknowledges that use of frogs as a rhetorical satire device in the Rigveda 7.103 has been universally rejected since Bloomfield’s article in the Journal of American Oriental Society 17.173 and that the hymn is considered to be a “serious, practical, sacerdotal rain-charm.”[40] The interpretation that the frogs were instruments of satire was based on the perception among scholars that the frog was seen as a disgusting and repulsive creature by Vedic peoples. This has been debunked, however. In its place, Vedic scholars have given credence to the “almost universal superstition…that the croaking of frogs is a sign of rain.”[41] As a matter of fact, Bender goes on to note that the tree-frog is often called “the prophet of the summer showers” by some peoples.[42] Bender goes on to relate the seeming natural and casual connection between the chorus of frogs and the coming of the rainy season.
If the Vedic Indians observed that the coming of the rains was preceded by the croaking of frogs, or even if the croaking and the rain were simultaneous, it would have been natural, yea inevitable, for them to conclude that the frogs were responsible for the breaking of the rains.[43]
Here we have a constant conjunction interpreted as a casual process.
Because the frog was seen as a harbinger of the rainy season and not a “vile and disgusting animal,” one must assume that the hymn is not the hymn of critique or satire that it appears to be on first light. Instead, the opposite is true. The hymn was thus considered by the composers to be one of reverence and spoke the truth that both Brahmins and frogs produce real change in the real world.
The efficacy of, and access to Vāk
Thus far this paper has touched on the location of the hymn, temporally and geographically, and the perceptions of how actors in the hymn were portrayed. Because much as been made above about the noises everyone is making in the hymn, it is necessary to explore the Vedic conceptions of the efficacy of sound to determine exactly what the composer was getting at in the hymn. The rhetoric so far has created a link between the frogs and the priests. Now we turn to the link between their actions and their effects. When this is completed, we will be able to take the hymn in as a whole.
An important point to make before this section is considered is the Western preference or bias towards the visual, the written, and the concrete in academic study. This is understandable, to be sure, but this bias handicaps western scholars when they approach Vedic culture. Beck writes to this problem in his book Sonic Theology. He claims, “While historians of religion have routinely conducted research into sacred space and sacred time, they have curiously overlooked or ‘over heard’ the dimension of sacred sound.”[44] This is an important shatter point for western scholarship, for once this over reliance on the empirical is moderated one can begin to gain an accurate conceptual picture, if you will, of how certain groups of non-western peoples view the world, in this case, the Vedic people.
Vāk is an important term, albeit a nuanced one, for the understanding of Vedic conception of sound. Simply put, it is impossible to encapsulate this term with few words. The term carries connotations of the goddess vāk and of sacred speech itself. Vāk can also be defined as “a feminine noun meaning ‘speech, voice, talk, language (also of animals), sound (also of inanimate objects as of the stones used for pressing, of a drum), a word, saying, phrase, sentence, statement, and speech personified.”[45] Therefore, vāk is quite the all encompassing word. This is not by accident. It is not merely some wide reaching word. It is a very serious religious term, one that is used for the very reason that it includes so much of the sonic realm.
Vāk, when spoken of as a goddess, has an incredible ability to affect the world around her. In Rigveda 10.125, she describes herself in no uncertain terms. She describes herself as the most worthy of all which are worthy of sacrifice.[46] It is she that bestows wealth to the sacrificer.[47] She carries “… both Varuna and Mitra, both Indra and Agni…”[48] In analyzing this hymn, Beck delves into a very nuanced and complicated treatment of Vāk, but, for the purposes of this paper, it is sufficient to quote the following in summary of Beck’s analysis of Vāk, when he writes, “[Vāk in Rigveda 10.125] …solely pervades and sustains all aspects of life…”[49] Vāk here seems to “power” the universe, she makes it run, from her comes the power to affect the world.
Brahmin priests used Sanskrit chant formulas called mantras in the most important element of religious life in Vedic culture, the yajna, or ritual sacrifice. These mantras served, in conjunction with the fire, to power the yajna ritual, which in turn produced very real effects on the world. This was accomplished through the relationship between sabda and artha.[50] Sabda was the word and artha was the meaning. There was a fundamental Indian assumption that “the Vedic word has an intrinsic connection with the object signified and, thus, with reality.”[51] This idea cannot be stressed enough. Beck echoes this, when he writes the following.
The entire infrastructure of Vedic sacred sound rests on the validity or nonvalidity of this relation… The philosophical ramifications implicit in the word-meaning relationship are, thus, of paramount importance as we first assess what is ‘at stake’…”[52]
For our purpose here, it is important to go back to Rigveda 10.125 and pay attention to stanza five, where Vāk gives the Brahmins their power, saying, “Whom I love I make awesome; I make him a sage, a wise man, a Brahmin.”[53] It is by and through Vāk that the Brahmins are able to affect the world; she powers the mantas of the Brahmins. When used correctly, their mantras are able to affect the world in a very real and tangible way.
Brahmins were not the only being granted the power of sacred, efficacious sound however. Remember, in the overarching definition of vāk, animal noises were also included. Beck notes that vāk, when referred to as sacred sound, is also “an underlying ‘language’ of nature in which the sounds of cows, animals, birds, frogs, drums, and even inanimate objects participated.”[54] Since even the animals were able to use this language of nature, their words too, when used correctly, could invoke a subjunctive reality. Remember, there is an implicit connection between the usage of words and the bringing about of reality. While their words are unintelligible as commanded in the mythological narrative Satapatha-Brahmana 4.1.3.1-16, their words still participate in the sabda/artha interdependence.[55]
To conclude this excursion on Vedic conceptions of sound, we have seen that their view of sound is completely foreign to how modern western people view sound. In order to fully understand their point of view, one must separate oneself from one’s western empirical filter. Once one does so, the following things come into view. First, vāk was an all encompassing term that denoted everything from a divine goddess to the beat of a drum. This was an intentional definition, because the Vedic peoples say sound as a driving force in the world. This driving force could be harnessed through the proper usage of words. Both Brahmin priests and humans had access to these words and could employ them in specific ways to create real effects in the real world. This has an important bearing on Rigveda 7.103 in that it demonstrates the truth that the hymn was calling upon and proclaiming to its hearers. Just as they were dependent on the frogs to call forth the rain, there were also dependent on the Brahmins to call forth material blessings.
Concluding Remarks
While to the modern reader the first glance of The Frog Hymn seems to ridicule the Brahmin priests, this is not the case upon further review. In Vedic culture, and in indigenous cultures throughout the world, the frog is looked upon as a revered bringer of life-sustaining rains. The sounds the frog made were considered to have a very real affect on the world around the Vedic peoples. In the hymn, the view of the Brahmins is closely bounded with that of the frogs. Therefore the hymn’s view of the Brahmins is an incredibly powerful and positive one. The Brahmin, through his chanting, was able to bring wealth to his people, just as the frogs called forth the life-sustaining rains.
In addition, while The Frog Hymn found in Rigveda 7.103 puts forth a positive view of frogs and, as a consequent, of Brahmin priests, there is still a humorous element lurking in the background. The members of the highest caste are being compared to frogs. While this humor is not vile in nature, it did serve to pique the interest of its hearers, as it continues to pique the interest of its readers today. This piquing of interest through humor was the initial phase in a two step process of hooking the hearer with humor and then hammering them with truth. This “hook them and hammer them” strategy can be seen in other sacred texts, such as in the Gospel of Luke, where Luke employed miracle stories to pique his reader’s interest and then framed his version of Jesus’ teach around them. The constant association of the teachings of Jesus accompanied by miracle stories in the Gospel of Luke served to foster the idea that if one desired to have the immediate benefits that are displayed in the gospel, then one should pay attention and heed Jesus’ teachings. Thus, the miracle stories in the Gospel of Luke function as billboards for the message, instead of functioning as proofs.
The same strategy is employed in The Frog Hymn. The hearer’s ear is caught by the humorous comparison of the mighty Brahmins with the frogs. Capitalizing on this audial billboard, the hymn then moves on to demonstrate the connection between the power of the frog-chorus and the Brahmin-chorus. This was a powerful association strategy. The curious comparison of the religious leaders of the society with frogs served as the hook and then the truth of the hymn was hammered home. Thus, not only did the hymn function as a rain charm, but also as a religious teaching device.
Through studying this hymn, several two other items come into focus. First, there is the realization that the West is concerned primarily with the study of that which is empirical. This is not in and of itself a negative thing, especially when the West is studying itself. However, when scholars in the West begin to study cultures that do not share their basic worldview, oversights can occur. It is all too easy to miss that which one is not looking for. Therefore, if western scholars are only looking in the empirical realm, such as archeology, written texts, and so forth, they are at great risk in forming incomplete perceptions of that which they are seeking to understand. Secondly, one cannot merely go by a surface reading of a text and hope to understand what is going on in the text. One can easily read subversion and resistance into this hymn. A natural line of reasoning sees that Brahmins were those in power in the compositional community and therefore concludes that they were oppressing the other members of the community. When the hymn expresses a possible ridiculing of these priests, it can also be easily assumed that the hymn was therefore functioning as a method of resistance to said oppression. However, in reading the hymn in its context, the opposite is true, as discussed above. This is not to say that there was neither oppression nor resistance in Vedic culture, for certainly many religious forms are employed to do just that; only that it is not to be found in this particular hymn, even though it almost begs to be found there. As such, religious scholars should be wary of seeing domination negotiation behind all of the trees in the forest.
Bibliography
Beck, Guy L. Sonic Theology: Hinduism and Sacred Sound. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1993.
Bender, Harold H. “On the Naturalistic Background of the ‘Frog-Hymn,’ Rig-Veda 7.103.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 37 (1917): 186-191.
Doniger, Wendy, trans. Rig Veda. London: Penguin Books, 1981.
Krappe, Alexander H. “The Lunar Frog.” Folklore 51, no. 3 (1940): 161-171.
Varjracharya, Gautama V. “The Adaption of Monsoonal Culture by Rgvedic Aryans: A Further Interpretation of the Frog Hymn.” Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 3, no. 1 (1997).
[1] ŖgVeda 7.103
[2] ŖgVeda 7.103.2
[3] ŖgVeda 7.103.10
[4] I am using the Geertz’s definition of a text and therefore am not limiting texts to written documents, but am including oral traditions and cultural templates of expression.
[5] Doniger, Wendy, trans. Rig Veda. London: Penguin Books, 1981.
[6] Since the hymn was originally transmitted orally instead of through written sources, the original audience will be referred to as hearers instead of readers as is usually the case in exegetical papers. However, when referring to modern Western interpreters I will refer to them as readers, because these people are working from the transcribed version of the hymn.
[7] ŖgVeda 7.103.1
[8] ŖgVeda 7.103.7
[9] Varjracharya, Gautama V. “The Adaption of Monsoonal Culture by Rgvedic Aryans: A Further Interpretation of the Frog Hymn.” Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 3, no. 1 (1997). Paragraph 1.
[10] ŖgVeda 7103.2
[11] ŖgVeda 7.103.2
[12] ŖgVeda 7.103.6
[13] ŖgVeda 7.103.3
[14] ŖgVeda 7.103.4
[15] ŖgVeda 7.103.4
[16] Bender, Harold H. “On the Naturalistic Background of the ‘Frog-Hymn,’ Rig-Veda 7.103.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 37 (1917): 188.
[17] ŖgVeda 7.103.5
[18] ŖgVeda 7.103.6, ŖgVeda 7.103.5
[19] ŖgVeda 7.103.6
[20] ŖgVeda 7.103.10
[21] ŖgVeda 7.103.5
[22] Vajracharya. Paragraph 7.
[23] Ibid. Paragraph 7.
[24] Ibid. Paragraph 7.
[25] Ibid. Paragraph 1.
[26] Ibid. Paragraphs 11, 17.
[27] RigVeda 7.103.2
[28] RigVeda 7.103.6
[29] Vajracharya. Paragraph 21.
[30] Krappe, Alexander H. “The Lunar Frog.” Folklore 51, no. 3 (1940): 162.
[31] Ibid. 163.
[32] Bender. 191.
[33] Ibid. 187.
[34] Ibid. 188.
[35] Ibid. 189.
[36] Ibid. 189.
[37] Krappe. 163.
[38] Ibid. 164.
[39] Ibid. 166-168.
[40] Bender. 186.
[41] Ibid. 187.
[42] Ibid. 187.
[43] Ibid. 187.
[44] Beck, Guy L. Sonic Theology: Hinduism and Sacred Sound. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1993. Page 3.
[45] Ibid. 25.
[46] Rigveda 10.125.3.
[47] Rigveda 10.125.2.
[48] Rigveda 10.125.1
[49] Beck. ibid. 28.
[50] Ibid. 31.
[51] Ibid. 32.
[52] Ibid. 32.
[53] Rigveda 10.125.5
[54] Beck. Ibid. 25.
[55] Ibid. 27.