I had posted the scriptural excerpt above (as translated by Manasataramgini) with the accompanying brief comment, for Kaal Bhairava Jayanti last year.

With it having been upon a Tuesday Night this time around – and therefore, a Wednesday Morning Dawn … it seems perhaps apt to contemplate an evident Germanic correlate for the mythic occurance in question.

This comes to us from that often-righteously-reviled work, the Gesta Danorum of Saxo Grammaticus. Which, despite being a propagandtastic piece in direct opposition to both the pre-Christian religion of the Nordic sphere … and Sweden in specia … nevertheless almost inadvertently contains useful material for our purposes.

It is, after all, rather difficult to twist the meaning of tales in order to defame their major figures and faithful without … well … starting with something recognizably of those tales to begin with.

So, as applies this particular mythic occurrence:

“At Othinus, recuperatis divinitatis insignibus, tanto opinionis fulgore cunctis terrarum partibus enitebat, ut eum perinde ac redditum mundo lumen omnes gentes amplecterentur, nec ullus orbis locus exstaret, qui numinis eius potentiae non pareret. “
[III 4 13 1]

Which, per the Nutt translation:

“But Odin, now that He had regained the emblems of Godhead, shone over all parts of the world with such a lustre of renown that all nations welcomed him as though he were light restored to the universe; nor was any spot to be found on the earth which did not homage to His Might.”

For context, what’s going on here is the triumphant return by Odin to Asgard [identified with Byzantium in the euhemeric efforts of Saxo] as righteous Ruler of … well, you can see that for yourself.

Saxo, of course, insists that the whole thing’s chicanery, and also includes the interesting note that:

“Sunt qui asserant eum quosdam deorum adulando, quosdam praemiis permulcendo amissae maiestatis fortunam pecunia emercatum fuisse et ad honores, quibus iam pridem defunctus fuerat, ingentis summae pretio reditum comparasse. “
[III 4 11 5]

Which, per Nutt:

“Some declare that He bought back the fortune of His lost divinity with money; flattering some of the Gods and mollifying some with bribes; and that at the cost of a vast sum He contrived to get back to the distinction which He had long quitted.”

To my mind, that simply sounds like the conduct of a rite – and, indeed, if we observe the circumstance & context of RV X 61-62 [ref. Ait. Br. V 14 and Sayana’s comments upon same & RV X 61], under the authorship of the Rsi Nābhānediṣṭha, just such a utilization of a Rite is undertaken in order to link (obtain) to Heaven.

Given the contents of RV X 61 – we are unsurprised to find this general thrust of myth(theme) (wherein Rudra obtains His Proper Honouring) is also rather specifically linked to Rudra’s Deed contra Prajapati; and we are, once again, indebted to Manasataramgini for his observation in this regard.

We would add: that as the circumstance of Rudra contra Daksha at the ill-starred horse-sacrifice of the latter (via which a man might obtain a universal lordship, indeed … and where the true Sovereign of the Worlds Entire had rather deliberately been non-invited by same) are demonstrably a similar ‘carrying forward’ of Rudra’s effort against Prajapati (and see, for instance, the detailing at SBr I 7 4 for the sanctions meted out to various Divinities following the circumstance with Prajapati and the matchup of these with the later Pauranika accountings for same in the aftermath for Daksha’s event) … this is, indeed, therefore of some pertinence for KaalBhairav Jayanti.

KaalBhairava’s saliency against Brahma being, likewise, just such a ‘carrying forward’, as we have detailed at some greater length elsewhere.

Hence, we note with interest the other major suite of mentioning within the aforementioned Gesta Danorum for Odin and the triumphant regaining of ‘Godhead’:

“Post haec Othinus, coniugis fato pristinae claritatis opinione recuperata ac veluti expiata divinitatis infamia, ab exsilio regressus cunctos, qui per absentiam suam caelestium honorum titulos gesserant, tamquam alienos deponere coegit subortosque magorum coetus veluti tenebras quasdam superveniente numinis sui fulgore discussit. Nec solum eos deponendae divinitatis, verum etiam deserendae patriae imperio constrinxit, merito terris extrudendos ratus, qui se caelis tam nequiter ingerebant.”
[I 7 3 1-2]

Which, per Nutt:

“The death of Odin’s Wife revived the ancient splendour of Nis name, and seemed to wipe out the disgrace upon His Deity; so, returning from exile, He forced all those, who had used His absence to assume the honours of divine rank, to resign them as usurped; and the gangs of sorcerers that had arisen He scattered like a darkness before the advancing glory of His Godhead. And He forced them by His Power not only to lay down their divinity, but further to quit the country, deeming that they, who tried to foist themselves so iniquitously into the skies, ought to be outcasts from the earth.”

The key element being that this “death of Odin’s Wife” is what is correlated with this … most definitely ‘Roudran’ [I can think of no other better adjective here] revanchist effort of His (Solar-)Storming into the Heavens. Just as, viz. the circumstance of Daksha, the Death of Sati is what triggers the thusly ensuing Celestial Crusade.

Tellingly, the circumstance – even garbled as it is within Saxo – also features the occurrence of a Decapitation of an adversarial usurper to the title; and, we note with further interest, pointed remarks in relation to the baleful spread of Disease and even this most intriguing verse:

“Hic deorum iram aut numinum violationem confusis permixtisque sacrificiis expiari negabat ideoque iis vota communiter nuncupari prohibebat, discreta superum cuique libamenta constituens.”
[I 7 2 3]

Per Nutt:
“He said that the wrath of the gods could never be appeased nor the outrage to their deity expiated by mixed and indiscriminate sacrifices, and therefore forbade that prayers for this end should be put up without distinction, appointing to each of those above his especial drink-offering.”

And, per the RigVeda:

mā tvā rudra cukrudhāmā namobhir mā duḥṣṭutī vṛṣabha mā sahūtī।
[RV II 33 4]

Translated by Griffith as:

“Let us not anger Thee with worship, Rudra, ill praise, Strong God! or mingled invocation.”

By H.H. Wilson as:

“Let us not provoke you, Rudra, to wrath by our (imperfect) adorations; nor, showerer (of benefits), by our unworthy praise, nor by our invocation (of other deities);”

And in the recent Jamison/Brereton rendition as:

“Let us not anger You, Rudra, through our acts of reverence, nor through poor praise, nor through an invocation shared (with other Gods), o Bull.”

Which, to quote myself upon the subject …

“It is a cautionary injunction to the human hearer, even as it is a reverent (indeed, directly ‘Eusebian’ – in the sense of doing something whilst affeared of the awesome Power of a God) prayer to the Divine Listener. The invoker is being pointedly polite with his etiquette (lest he become ‘pointed at’ in another sense, through dereliction of same), and emphasizing that the petitioners do not wish to offend the God – whether through worship, or through ‘Dustuti’ or ‘Sahuti’. These last two terms are in large measure why I have chosen to quote this verse – for they mean “ill-formed/executed prayers” and “mingled calling/invocation”, respectively. “

But I have my own Rites to attend to – and should be getting on with them most swiftly. For now, this (and what but briefly follows) should prove an introductory overview as to my thinking upon this subject.

And what I’d written last year:

---

For various reasons, I carried out my observances well after Midnight today, timed so that their conclusion would be close to the Sun’s ascent into the glorious Dawn.

This brought to mind these words from the Katha Aranyaka (translation by Manasataramgini) – which describe Rudra making an ascent into Heaven and impressing upon the rest of the Pantheon that no, no They should not be persisting in refusing to render to Him, His fair share of the sacrificial Offering.

As one can clearly see, He is similarly described in gloriously Solar terms also herein. Something that is found right throughout the scriptural canon – yet is somewhat rarely remarked upon by an array of non-Hindu commentators.

There are several points we could pick up upon to explicate further that are found within this passage – concerning the intricate usage of theonymics and subtle resonances to other texts and concepts communicated there-through.

But for now, I think we can present it just ‘as is’.

Although our mind also recalls the descriptor from the KalaBhairava Ashtakam for Bhairava :

भानुकोटिभास्वरं

“[With The] Exceeding Brightness / Radiance of the Sun”

So He Is – the Supreme Lord not only of Blessed Kashi … but also of All the Worlds, Entire !

ॐ नमः शिवाय !

—

All that we shall add (for now) is thus:

That Rudra shall indeed have His Share.

And His Wife.

And Woe And Wrath And Indescribable Terror Unto Any “Sorcerers”, Yatudhanas, or (as Saxo’s original Latin text has it, the Zoroastrian-inflected) “Magi” , nor any other such metaphysical miscreant who would scurrilously seek to stand in His Stead nor otherwise be obstructing His (Blessed) Path.

They cannot say they were not Warned.