Odin (And Vili, And Vé) slaying Ymir.

Zeus (And The Gods, And Three Ouranian Cyclopes, And Three Hekatoncheries) warring against the Titans, Gigantes, and Kronos (And Typhon).

The Glorious (Agni-)Rudra (Dyaus) driving forth in terror and annihilation the Demons (A’Suras) from their three great citadels , winning the Three Worlds via Siege and His most formidable Thunderbolt Three-Arrow (the same mighty weapon wielded also against Prajapati).

During the course of our research for the recent ‘On The Sky Father As Dragon Destroyer‘ (A)Arti-cle, we had observed a rather remarkable patterning. One which is observed both within the realms of Myth – and, we believe, also resonating out to within the realms of the Rite, along likewise. Certainly, this is what we have in evidence for the Vedic sphere. And in concert with that which we have highlighted from within the Hellenic and broader Classical – it should seem also to help us to add vital and much-needed additional detailing to our comprehension for the Nordic likely comparative element to go with. 

Due to the depth of these potent-ial discoveries, I have elected to break the work up into three (or more) components. The first shall ‘set the scene’ and make use of the best-attested suite of conceptry to ‘establish the typology’. That is, of course, the Vedic – and to that we shall ensuingly turn. This shall be followed by an examination as to the Hellenic within the second installment, before finally concluding with the admittedly rather more overtly ‘theoretical’ dimensions for the Nordic / Germanic. 

But let us move forward and examine the core as to this structure. 

That is to say – in both Vedic and Hellenic textual attestation, we encountered the Gods coming together to swear a covenant of allied fealty and fraternal common purpose immediately prior to Their waging most grievous war upon a particular adversary. 

This might, by itself, be a rather less-than-totally-impressive declaration to make – after all, what is so remarkable about such a thing in isolation. Yet there were other details, too, which seemed to most strongly indicate that we were dealing with parallel Vedic and Hellenic renditions of the same mythic (and, in Vedic terms, mytho-ritual) occurrence.

For example – in both spheres, what was done therein appeared to act as a necessary predicate to the obtaining of the Weapon of the Sky Father with which He would carry out the combat in question. Both occurrences were immediate pre-sagings of the ‘election’ of said Sky Father to His Designated Role (and that is a rather more expansive proposition than it might at first appear … entailing not only the ‘Championship’, so to speak, of the Gods – but also an appointment to ‘Overlordship’ in some capacity); and with the undertaking in question also setting the stage for the vital Conquest by the Gods of the (Three) Worlds, into the bargain.

This theme of ‘Threes’ being most prominent also with the Trio of Gods (or Labelings / Functional or Ritual Elements referred to via Theonymics, in the Vedic mythically-phrased and framed ritual expositions) often focused upon, as well. Which, of course, makes eminent sense for various reasons – there being ‘Three Worlds’ in each of the archaic Vedic and Hellenic cosmologies, which are to be brought under the Divine Dominion, for a start. 

More intriguingly still – it was not only the Vedic & Hellenic spheres which evinced this pervasive patterning. We also had observed the same broad outline to be in evidence within the Eddic, the Nordic or Germanic, as well. And that which is said Three Times, so to say, it must be true!

Now, having said that – it is also perhaps rather important to note that not every single presentation as to these events within the Vedic or Hellenic textual canons has all of the details which we are concerned with here. Some are evidently more fragmentary accounts which only choose to briefly mention several elements in passing – for example, those astrological texts which do exactly this as they skim over the Classical legends around a given asterism.

Others interweave their recountings with ‘parallel strands’ from similar-yet-different mythic narratives at alternating steps as to the process – as we see when it comes to the Vedic suite of texts, wherein the very same Rite with the very same Ritual Elements and therefore binding ‘skeletal structure’, is given multiple slightly differing narrative explications across different Vedic texts and oriented around various narrativized Divine War Efforts which consequently emphasize (or, assumedly, de-emphasize) certain details as required. 

Yet it is nevertheless most readily apparent that, upon taking the proverbial ‘step back’ to view things in their full span of context, the same basic patterns are resoundingly re-carved out within each realm. And – even though we have but a single text to hinge this upon for the Nordic sphere, in that latter place and textual attestation, as well. 

The handy thing about all of this is not simply that “there is a pattern” – as pleasing as that may be for us to behold (and seriously, every further proof as to the fundamental unity and mutual inter-resonation of the Indo-European mythic canons is to be welcomed by us, in earnest). But rather, it is precisely because this shared coterminity thusly enables us to make additional sense out of each individual Indo-European sphere’s presentation and preservation of the same core narrative. Most particularly when, as with the Nordic recension, we otherwise have so little to go upon other than the direct words written upon the page (and their potential for ‘dual meanings’ – you’ll see that which I mean within a moment). 

So, with all of that preamble hopefully completed … let us turn back time and encounter our first of the Three Spheres (or, given some of the context, Tri-Loka – or even Tri-Pura – might justifiably work there, as well). 

This being, of course, the Vedic – as it is the most comprehensive in its detailing and thusly enables us to ‘set the template’ for the other Two to be perceived through, in earnest.

That which we are focused upon, here, is a particular ‘step’ in the multi-phasic Rites of the Upasads – the ‘Rites of Siege’. [viz. Ait. Br. I 23-25; SBr III 4 2-4; TS VI 2 2-5, etc. etc.; I haven’t included the Guest-Offering that precedes these within various of the texts] 

The broad situation of these appropriately named operations is that the Gods are in conflict with the Demons [‘A’Suras’] for suzerainty over the ‘inhabitable’ Universe (with the Demons being in ascendency and exerting dominion over the Worlds at the outset) – and so must undertake a series of metaphysical operations [i.e. Rituals] to enable Themselves to triumph. 

A key feature of these, to start at the end of the process, is the congealment of a most mighty weapon indeed – the formidable ‘TriKanda’ (‘Three-Arrow’) [also described as a ‘Thunderbolt’; and, in a slightly different guise, to be identified with the Three Stars of Orion’s Belt] , that is to be shot by the most formidable of the Gods – Agni-Rudra. And which has, as Its three ‘energies’ or ‘components’, Agni, Soma, and Vishnu – which, to elaborate a bit, we may fairly take to (particularly, although not necessarily exclusively) indicate the core ‘essences’ of the Vedic Sacrifice (this is not my ‘creative inference’ … this is a fairly standard span of Vedic conceptry where these things are concerned – ‘Agni’ and ‘Soma’ being relatively self-explanatory within this context, ‘Vishnu’ at various points within the Brahmanas being utilized to refer to ‘The Sacrifice’, &c., for example; individual ritual commentaries shall ‘key’ these particular namings or elements to relevant ritual considerations and inputs for each stage as to the process).

[It should also be noted that the Aitareya Brahmana iteration as to the Rite features, at I 25, an additional ‘part’ that is correlate with Varuna – as the ‘fletching’ (which, for reasons that shall become clear, we would take to refer to the key focal for the Tanūnapātra phase of operations] ; although it then goes on to seemingly reduce these components back down to the more expected Three later in the same passage – most intriguingly, as part of a suite of conceptry wherein the Components as to the Arrow are linked to the Streams of Milk from a certain Cow … and more on that in due course!]

To speak in greater detailing as to the Rite – or, rather, stage within the broader constellation of the Rites – in question, the ‘Tanūnapātra’ : there are two elements to the term. ‘Tanu’, and ‘Napat’.

Napat, it is a correlate with various terms you may be more familiar with … ‘Nephew’, for instance. It means, in essence, ‘Descendant’ (a la ‘Son’) – and, intriguingly, the archaic PIE etymology is occasionally suggested to have derived from a notion of being ‘Not’ (‘Ne-‘) the ‘Potis’ (‘Lord’); with some additional speculation as to how this might, perhaps, pertain to the figure of ‘Neptune’ (although I, personally, would choose instead to emphasize the ‘*Nebh-‘ for the moisture dynamic so inherent to He – ref. ‘Nebel’, ‘Nebula’, etc.; water does, of course, feature rather prominently within the aforementioned Ait. Br. recension as to proceedings as to the place for the ‘pooling’ of Forms in the course of our incipient Rite). 

Tanu (तनु), meanwhile, has a multiplicity of meanings – including, as we shall soon consider, ’emanation’, etc. However, for our purposes, I think that the interpretation is, rather, that of “stretching” … and so, the Tanunapatra Rite ought best be understood as, so to speak, ‘stretching’ the ‘kinship’ / ‘common-descent’ so as to make the participants as Brothers unto Each Other. 

We are reminded, of course, of that famous and immortal phase of address from Shakespeare’s Henry the Vth – of St. Crispin’s Day and the much-reputed ‘Band of Brothers’ thus ‘stablished even about their King. To quote a bit therefrom to jog a few memories in recollection:

“This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.”

Said Weapon is, of course, congealed from these fire-altar enabled ritualistic undertakings; and then utilized in fairly dramatic fashion against the Demons, to shatter their dominion (in particular, their (three) forts or fortified cities) and drive them forth from the Three Worlds so as to ensure the Divine Dominion.

[Interestingly, the Aitareya Brahmana recension [I, 23], again, has a slightly diverging detail or two – namely, the Gods are presented as ‘constructing’ [‘kurvata’] a number of ‘places’ in direct counter-point to the Demons’ citadels at each Loka (‘Realm’ / ‘Plane’) and therefore establishing the emplacement as to Their Holy Dominion through quite literally (well, mytho-literally) ‘making the Worlds Their Own’ … a detail that may prove pertinent later; the same text also immediately after this presents the Conquest of the Three Worlds as one occurring sequentially, one World after the other, rather than more unilaterally as in other versions]

To go back a stage – the Brahmanas (and Taittiriya Samhita) all make mention of a situation of ‘disunity’ amidst the Gods (as Eggeling’s rendering for SBr III 4 2 1 puts it – a situation of being “unwilling to yield to Each Other’s Excellence”) that must be rectified if They are to succeed. The texts differ as to both the number and the membership as to the fractious factions which thusly resulted. Some have Their division being into Four groups, others into Five.

This situation of disunity presents an obvious difficulty for the Divine War Effort that the Demons are liable to take fairly active advantage of. They resolve Their Discord via what we might – perhaps rather (mytho-)literally term a ‘pooling as to Their Sovereignty’ (insofar as the Aitareya Brahmana presents it as the Gods placing Their ‘dearest’ (‘priyatama’) … ‘Tanu’ is going to be a difficult one to translate (although the SBr helpfully has ‘dhāmāni’ alongside, as well). I might go with ‘Essences’ (or even, perhaps, in light of ‘dhāmāni’, ‘Potencies’) as a placeholder, for now (‘Emanations’ would also somewhat fit – perhaps as a ‘power-project(ed)’ sense). The Gods place Their ‘dearest Essences’ within ‘the House of King Varuna’ – taken as the Water ).

Per the  SBr, this is effectively ‘Witnessed’ and ‘Guaranteed’ by a figure hailed as ‘Tanūnapāt’ … stated to be the Wind [c.f. TS VI 2 2’s “Him Who Rusheth On […] is the Breath”, per the Keith translation]; yet which also can be understood to be Agni – Who is, indeed, hailed elsewhere as ‘Agni Tanunapat’. This is exactly as we should anticipate and for obvious reasons. After all, the notion of Agni as a Witness to an Oath is deservedly prominent and should most directly be countenanced – not least due to the recurrent attestations also for Agni as ‘Vratapā’ at, for instance, SBr III 4 3 9, or the triple-framed ‘Vrata-‘ oriented hailings for Him at TS I 2 11 (immediately proximate to another ‘Three Forts’ resonancy, and immediately following a previous Tanunapat citation) and VS V 6 (again, immediately after the Tanunapat occurrence within Verse Five of the same Hymn).

We would also, of course, reference (Agni-)Rudra (Vastos Patim), entirely uncoincidentally, as Upholder of Law, under the same ‘Vratapā’ hailing at RV X 61 7 … Rudra contra Prajapati being a heavily ‘entertwined’ suite of understanding with this particular skein of myth : c.f. Ait. Br. III 33, where it is the ‘ghoratamās tanva’ – the ‘most terrific forms’ which The Gods pool together to conjure Rudra to express Their Combined Wrath , as we have discussed elsewhere; and with this notion of Agni adopting a Dread Form [for example, ‘rúdriyā tanū́s’ per TS I 2 11 e –  ‘Rudriya’, indeed … again just prior to the Three Forts saliency and immediately following the ‘Vrata-‘ linkages of His Support and Portfolio : ‘ ágne vratapate tváṃ vratā́nāṃ vratápatir […] vratapate vratínor vratā́ni’ , per TS I 2 11 d ; ] likewise prominent.

This should not surprise us. 

Rudra, after all, is most certainly the Wind [ref. SBr VI 1 3 13 for its presentation as to the ‘AshtaMurti’ [‘Eight Facings’] conceptry for Him, which has Agni-Rudra as ‘Ugra’ as Vayu – or the Kaushitaki Brahmana’s similar linking for Pashupati (i.e. the theonymic which is utilized both in various attestations for Rudra’s TriKanda deployment ‘gainst Prajapati … as well as that undertaken against the Three Citadels of the Demons, per TS VI 2 3 – albeit in slightly altered format as the ‘Adhipati’ of the Pashu clades) as Vayu, etc.] – and we are most certainly not short of direct attestations for Rudra also being Agni (and vice versa) within these conceptual halls. Even before we get to the “Tanūnapāt” directly stated to be a Theonym as to He (Rudra) per the Thousand Name Hymnal(s) (Sahasranāma) to be found at Linga Purana I 98 and Shiva Purana IV 35 alike. 

In any case He, the God that is Tanunapat, is the ‘Śakvana’ (‘[Most] Powerful’, also ‘Artificer’) and ‘Ojiṣṭha’ (‘Strongest’ … although also the superlative for ‘Ugra’ – ‘Furious’, inter alia) [SBr III 4 2 12]; and per TS VI 2 2 (inter alia), He (Agni) is established, via [the elements or potencies congealed in support of] the Gods entering into Him as Their Protector and Champion against the Demons. 

He is the Oath as well as its Executor – and a most mighty Binding, a most mighty Oath, it is, indeed which the Gods have chosen to undertake. 

The results of this are difficult to overstate. It should seem to be correlate with Rta Itself, and with consequent quite literally ‘cosmic’ (in the archaic Greek sense) and imperious potency and empowerments to match –  indeed, as Eggeling translates the latter part to SBr III 4 2 8: 

“It is through this that Their Conquest, Their Glory is unassailable”. Or, as the Ait. Br. puts it (I 24, Haug translation) – “Thence the A’suras could not conquer Their (The Gods’) Empire (for They All had been made inviolable by this ceremony).”

Or, to return to the SBr [III 4 2 14, Eggeling translation]: this is “the Strength of the Gods, Unassailed and Unassailable; for the Gods were indeed Unassailed and Unassailable while Being Together, and Speaking with One Accord and Holding Together.’ ‘The Strength of the Gods’ doubtless means the Favourite Forms and Desirable Powers of the Gods, ‘Uncursed, Curse-Averting, Uncursable,’ for the Gods have Overcome every curse […]”; 

And, per SBr III 4 3 15: “By means of the Sacrifice the Gods Gained that Supreme Authority which They Now Wield.”
[Eggeling translation]

As we can see – this is a most potent, and most foundational observance for the Cosmos [quite literally – in the archaic Graecian sense of a ‘Regime’, a ‘Realm-Under-Law’, indeed!] . It is the veer-y Essence as to the Divine Order ; and precisely so is it that that is to enable the Worlds to be ‘stabilized’, ‘stablished’, and liberated from Demonic occupancy. 

A “Band of Brothers”, indeed – Gods United in common cause and common purpose, and absolutely undefeatable therefore, as a result. 

Yet it still requires further ‘active operationalization’. 

And that comes from – as you shall have probably anticipated – the appointment of a certain God as the Divine Archer to make use of this Great Arrow so as to drive forth the demons from the soon-to-be Demesne(s) of the Gods. 

The Keith rendition for Taittiriya Samhita VI 2 3 1-2 phrases the whole thing thusly:

“The Asuras had three citadels; the lowest was of iron, then there was one of silver, then one of gold. The Gods could not conquer them; They sought to conquer them by siege; therefore they say — both those who know thus and those who do not — ‘By siege They conquer great citadels.’ They made ready an arrow, Agni as the [ánīkaṁ], Soma as the [śalyáṃ], Visnu as the [téjanam].
They Said, ‘Who shall shoot It?’ ‘Rudra’, They Said, ‘Rudra is Cruel [‘krūráḥ’], let Him shoot It.’
He Said, ‘Let Me choose a Boon; let Me be Overlord of Animals [‘paśūnā́m ádhipatir’]. Therefore is Rudra Overlord of Animals. Rudra let It go; It cleft the three citadels and drove the Asuras away from these worlds. The observance of the Upasads is for the driving away of foes […]”

If you’re familiar with the ‘Tripurantaka’ hailings and stories of the later Hindu mythology – well, yeah, this is that. As is it also an accounting of why Rudra is ‘Pashupati’ – the Lord of Pashu. Which can be translated a few ways … in modern works, usually somewhat imprecisely as ‘Beasts’ (or, with a view to a potential esoteric meaning, potentially even as ‘Beings’ – ‘Leashed Beings’, which includes Humanity, as it happens … ), although better understood as ‘Cattle’ (i.e. Cows, in particular – attested in various other Brahmana etc. linkages for Rudra with the Protection & Overlordship of Cows); not least given the cognates in the form of Proto-Germanic / Elder Futhark *Fehu as well as Latin ‘Pecu’ – and therefore, inferentially, we may say, rendering Him a ‘Lord of Wealth’, as well. 

That particular element – His obtaining of this hailing as the Lord of the Pashu – is also quite prominent as His ‘payment’ for shooting such a Triple-Arrow at Prajapati, as well; and this should prove unsurprising considering, as noted but briefly above, that that deed, too, is one wherein the Gods effectively ‘combine’ Their ‘Expressions’ [‘Tanva’] (although here [viz. Ait. Br. III 33, etc.], it is Their most ‘Terrific’ , Terrifying of these – ‘ghoratamās tanva’) and thusly bring forth an Upholder of the Word [‘Vratapā’ – ‘Vrata’ can be taken as both ‘Oath’ and ‘Law’] , a Lord of the [(In)habitable] Space (Vāstoṣpati / Vāstoṣ Patiṃ), in order to do the Deed. Which is also, as it should transpire, oriented around His Protection of His Own ‘Cow’ – that being, we have shown capaciously elsewhere, His Wife. For those ‘playing at home’, we have linked this to several occurrences for Zeus i.e. ‘Dyaus’ – Rudra within the Hellenic legendarium – and several of these shall indeed become more overtly salient to us in due course.

[For completeness’ sake, and lest I be accused of purposefully leaving something out … we have also explored elsewhere and in some depth how the situation recounted in the Aitareya Brahmana for Rudra contra Prajapati appears quite resonant, as well, with Hesiod’s presentation as to Kronos contra Ouranos. This is non-exclusive with the resonance in the direction of Zeus contra Kronos – and, rather, speaks to the curious ‘Double-Up’ in evidence within the Hellenic mythos which should seem to have reduplicated the one conflict in a ‘vertical’ (that is to say – telescopically extending back also one generation back prior) fashion.]

In any case, to bring things back to the Upasads more directly – per the RigVedic Verses indicated for usage via Aitareya Brahmana I 25 in that recension as to the Rite, we have Agni … more (Tri)pointedly, Agni “May He Smite The Vrtras” [“aghnirvṛtrāṇi jaṅghanad” – note the Han (हन्), from PIE *gʷʰen- ; RV VI 16 34], and then a few lines later [RV VI 16 39] – Agni as the Furious / Fierce Archer (‘Ugra […] Śaryahā’ ; the latter term, more literally, being One Who Smites (‘Han’ again) With Arrows (‘Sharya’)), the Searing-Horned Bull (‘Tigmaśṛṅgo […] Vaṃsagaḥ – the ‘śṛṅgo’ referring to Horn, the ‘Tigma’ meaning ‘Sharp’, ‘Fiery’, ‘Impassioned’; Vaṃsaga being ‘Bull’ … ) Who Sunders (‘Rurojitha’) the Fortresses (‘Puro’) [i.e. Rudra – Sayana’s commentary makes this quite explicit; TS I 2 11 also has a suite of effectively coterminous liturgy, following on from *another* Tanunapat style operation at TS I 2 10, wherein we again have Agni as Vratapa(te) … and then Agni spoken of as having a Terrific (‘Rúdriyā tanū́s’) Form in relation thereto … ]. You get the idea. Without, one hopes, me having to go off and dig up all the voluminous Agni-Rudra conceptry as well to show that this is the same formidable Figure being referred to by both suites of theonymy and Vedic verses.

[Strictly speaking, there are also RV Verses to be chanted that are to go with the Soma and Vishnu components that round out the Triple Arrow – however , with the somewhat exception of RV I 91 5, featuring ‘King’ [‘Rāj-‘] Soma as a ‘Vṛtrahā’ likewise, these are not so overtly relevant … certainly not as ‘on-the-nose’ as the Sunderer of Forts is with relation to the other presentations as to the Telling]. 

As a brief aside, SBr III 4 2 (2 & 15) diverges from the pattern somewhat, insofar as its presentation for the Tanunapatra style of operation has the Gods and Groups of Divinity , to quote Eggeling’s translation: “[ 2 ] They yielded to the excellence of Indra; wherefore it is said, ‘Indra is all the Deities, the Gods have Indra for Their Chief.’ […] [ 15 ] Now those favourite forms and desirable powers which the Gods put together, They then deposited in Indra […]”

I quote that particular verse because I’m sure somebody will otherwise, when we get to the Zeus component to affairs, wish to make mention of it in a bid to try and reassert the old (and demonstrably woefully incorrect) ‘consensus position’ of Indra somehow being Zeus (i.e. Dyaus – His Father). Except whilst it might look like this recension has Indra in such a ‘Prominent’ or ‘Eminent’ role (that’s … a better rendering of the term involved – ‘śreṣṭha’ ) … if we actually pay attention to the text, the second half of verse 15 reveals us quite a different story: 

“Hence, if many persons perform the consecration , let it (the Tānūnaptra butter), after pouring the fast-milk to it, be handed only to the Master of the House, since he, among them, is the representative of Indra. And if he perform the consecration by means of an (offering) with a dakṣiṇā, let them hand it (the butter) to the sacrificer, after pouring the fast-milk to it, for thus it is said,–‘The Sacrificer is Indra.'”

Or, phrased another way … the reason that this particular Brahmana’s conceptual suite is not in keeping with that which we should anticipate built around a) the other ritual presentations from those other Vedic texts for this undertaking, b) the typological inference that we ought be encountering a Sky Father deific expression in this relevant role … is because, as ever, the Brahmanas (and, for that matter, to varying extents also, the Samhitas , etc.) are not there as a pure ‘Mythology Guide’. But are rather there to ‘Operationalize’ the Mythology into Ritualistic format. And part and parcel as to this is, of course, the ability to ‘engage’ a ‘Mesocosmic’ interface (i.e. ‘between’ Microcosm – that is, ‘down here’, the ‘sidereal’, the level of humans … and Macrocosm – i.e. the Supernal, the Mythic, the Realm of Gods, and so forth) in order for the ritual to actually ‘work’.

Which, whilst in other rites (or, in this case, recensions thereof), one might find the Priest(s) quite overtly stepping into the ‘Role(s)’ of Agni (or even Rudra) [as one of an … array of ‘entanglement’ measures that may be undertaken, contingent upon the tradition and the circumstance] … in this case, the SBr is instead having a relatively more ‘familiar’ figure for the Priest to ‘become as’ – that being Indra. And hence, where those other ritual approaches to the same broad rite have the relevant Divine Essences becoming invested & emplaced within Agni or, for that matter, the ‘House of King Varuna’ (i.e. the Water), per Ait. Br. I 24 … well, as you can see, this time around They go into the Priest – as ‘Indra’. And therefore also the ‘Eminent’ / ‘Facing’ / ‘Expression’ thereof out here into our world (ref. ‘śreṣṭha’ again, in a sense, perhaps).Which also helps to explain the similarly slightly curious detailing wherein the SBr suite of conceptry doesn’t actually have a designated (singular) Archer(-Deity) declared – instead having ‘The Gods’ in general undertaking, followed by ‘He’ (i.e. the human Priest) acting in tangible emulation to accomplish the requisite outcome utilizing Sacral elements in resonation (i.e. the relevant elements – Ghee, particular Offerings, etc. are held to be the Thunderbolt; and his, the human priest’s carrying out / utilization of these is declared to have that same ‘weaponized’ impact as the Gods’ Divine Weaponry, accordingly). 

While I am tempted to expound further upon various of these points above-raised, I shall restrain that impetus for the time being. Although it may prove useful to congeal a short ‘synopsis’ or more skeletal framework for the general process observed within the myth and myth-as-ritual-templating/explication that we have encountered for the Vedic sphere so as to help to make sense of what is to follow as applies the Hellenic sphere (and later, Nordic/Germanic). 

But that, I suspect, is a bridge which may be crossed more earnestly in due course. 

In sum, we can say but this – that via this Rite of the Covenant, the Gods Themselves are engaged in the ‘Arya’ Manner.

‘Arya’, as we all (by now) perhaps know – is from PIE *h₂er- … that term for ‘fitting together’, which also supplies to us ‘Rta’ (‘Cosmic Order’) and ‘Art’, and the modern English ‘Army’ from the Latin terms for ‘Arms’ and ‘Arming’. 

Most excellent, then, to hear this attested in earnest – that the Gods are mighty in Their Co-Operation as well as in Their Faith ; and that in Unity, and through Piety, great things may truly become accomplished.

We had earlier referenced Shakespeare’s deservedly prominent ‘St Crispin’s Day’ address from Henry the Vth, due to the strong degree of ‘conceptual resonancy’ which could be felt between its concourse and that which we had observed with regard to the Tanunapatra style of operation and attendant mytho-ritualistic understandings. 

In closing (for now) – I should like to draw upon a rather different and more recent luminary of the English literary sphere … who, as it should occur, was also born in India and in the work to be quoted was setting his words also therein. 

The author in question being one Rudyard Kipling, and the piece his ‘The Law for the Wolves’ from ‘The Second Jungle Book’. 

It had seemed rather apt not only due to the underlying sentiment expressed within the verses with relation to our general sweep of Indo-European theological conceptry for the Divine Rite of the Covenant amongst the Gods … but also due to the various ways in which my perhaps over-tired mind noted points of similar (and similarly entirely unintentional) ‘resonancy’ between the imagery used in the first few verses and points salient for ‘our’ Rudra. That most Dread Enforcer and also Embodiment of the Principle and Potency for the Tanunapatra Rite and its ensuing Bond. You spend long enough gazing into the Sri Rudram Namakam, and It assumedly Gazes (whether with all Three Eyes) back into You.  

“NOW this is the law of the jungle, as old and as true as the sky,
And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die.

As the creeper that girdles the tree trunk, the law runneth forward and back;
For the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack.”

Or, as the ritual phrasings of the Shatapatha Brahmana put it:

“8 The Gods laid down together Their favourite forms and desirable powers, and said, ‘Thereby He shall be away from Us, He shall be scattered to the winds, Whosoever shall transgress this (covenant) of Ours!’ And even now the Gods do not transgress that (covenant), for how would They fare, were They to transgress it? — They would speak untruth [‘Anrta’], and verily there is one law which the Gods do keep, namely, the Truth. It is through this that Their Conquest, Their Glory is Unassailable: and so, forsooth, is his conquest, his glory unassailable whosoever, knowing this, speaks the truth. Now, the Tānūnaptra is really that same (covenant of the Gods).”
[SBr III 4 2 8, Eggeling translation]

So – a ‘Law for Wolves’, then. With, entirely fittingly (*h₂er- again), a multifaceted suite of attestations across all three major Indo-European canons we are to examine in the course of our series, for the Sky Father in relation thereto. Not least as the Enforcer and Upholder as to the Divine Law – that great, luminous (λευκός – ‘Leukos’ – from PIE *Lewk) Wolf Who Stands Sentinel within the Altar-Flame.

An apt foundation – not only for ‘Cosmos’, in the sense of the Divine Realm and Regime (‘κόσμος’) … but also upon which to base our ensuing analysis of these other suites of parallel European-occurrent mythic conceptry. 

No World Beyond Their Rule ;

No Enemy Beyond Their Wrath .

ॐ नमः शिवाय !