Leaf-messenger symbolism

Abstract

Part of the Indus seal inscription symbols can be interpreted with Vedic rituals mentioned in Grihya-Sutra. There is one symbol indicating a god carrying a walking stick and in a leaf shape. It could be a god or an ordinary man. Reading Grihya-sutra suggests that the Vedic people used a leaf messenger to convey their sacrifice to gods or Pithrus (Manes).

Figure : Leaf -messenger.

Figure : Variations of leaf messenger.

The above-given figure-2 gives the variations of the leaf-messenger symbol. The wide variety of styles used indicates the importance of this symbolism and the frequent use of this symbol for an extended period. In the earlier phase of the IVC, the seal inscriptions contained the simple leaf-like characters shown in figure -2. In the later epoch of IVC, the below-given symbols appear (figure -3). All of them point toward the same meaning and allegory.

Figure : Leaf symbolism could be indicating the God Rudra also.

Now it is time to trace out the link between these above-given symbols and literary evidence available in Vedic texts. So far, Indian historians are under the impression that Indus valley civilization and Vedic civilization are different. Myopic view leads to a situation where physical evidence is available in IVC, but there is no literary evidence. At the same time, there is literary evidence available for Vedic civilization in Rig Veda and other Vedas, but there is no physical evidence. How is such a contradiction possible? A simple explanation is that both cultures are the same. Only the British colonial archaeologist had created this artificial separation. This misidentification has led to absolute confusion, and the time has come to correct this significant error being perpetrated on Indians.

The literary evidence for this leaf messenger symbol is available in Asvalayana Grihya-Sutra. The extract of the relevant portion is being reproduced here for ready reference.

ASVALAYANA-GRIHYA-SUTRA. (2)

ADHYAYA – I,

KANDIKA 12.

1 [*1]. At a Kaitya sacrifice, before offering the Svishtakrit, the sacrificer should offer a Bali to the Kaitya.

2 [*2]. If, however, (the Kaitya) is distant, (he should send his Bali) through a leaf-messenger.

3 [*3]. With the Rik, ‘Where thou knowest, O tree’ (Rig-Veda V, 5, 10), let him make two lumps (of food), put them on a carrying-pole, hand them over to the messenger, and say to him, ‘Carry this Bali to that (Kaitya).’

4. (He gives him the lump) which is destined for the messenger, with (the words), ‘This to thee.’

5. If there is anything dangerous between (them and the Kaitya), (he gives him) some weapon.

6 [*6]. If a navigable river is between (them and the Kaitya, he gives him) also something like a raft with (the words), ‘Hereby thou shalt cross.’

7 [*7]. At the Dhanvantari sacrifice, let him offer first a Bali to the Purohita, between the Brahman and the fire.

Footnotes

^178:1 12, 1. There seems to be no doubt that Professor Stenzler is right in giving to Kaitya in this chapter its ordinary meaning of religious shrine (‘Denkmal’). The text shows that the Kaitya sacrifice was not offered like other sacrifices at the sacrificer’s home, but that in some cases, the offering would have to be sent, at least symbolically, to distant places. This confirms Professor Stenzler’s translation of Kaitya. Narayana explains Kaitya by kitte bhava and says, ‘If a sacrificer makes a vow to a certain deity, saying, “If I obtain such and such a desire, I shall offer to thee an Agya sacrifice, or a Sthalipaka, or an animal”. And if he then obtains what he had wished for and ‘performs that sacrifice to that deity: this is a Kaitya sacrifice.’ I do not know anything that supports this statement as to the meaning of Kaitya.

^178:2 ‘He should make a leaf a messenger and a carrying-pole.’ Narayana

Betel leaf or Pipal leaf

Now, it is relevant to verify the given leaf is betel leaf or Pipal leaf. So far, the discussions in IVC is discussing only the Pipal tree, and no thought has been given to the possibility of any other leaf. Now, there is a possibility that the leaf-messenger symbol indicates a Betel leaf also.

The website Indian Scripture.com says that in the Hindu marriage ceremony, a ritual called Briddhi-Sraddha is performed. As a part of the ritual, the Bride-groom invokes the resting souls of his ancestors. And in the presence of them all, he accepts the bride as his wife. At this instant, thirty-two betel leaves (Paan Leaves) are compulsorily required during the ancestral worship. A senior authority on sacred trees, Sengupta says, “Betel leaf is considered sacramental in Hindu religion. Betel leaf or Paan leaf holds equal importance with other Hindu holy trees. (3)

The above-given discussion shows that the original concept of leaf-messenger of the Vedic time was transformed into a new idea, where Betel leaves themselves are treated as ancestors (Manes). This ritual shows that the leaf messenger was specifically invoked for ancestors (Manes), not any other gods. This Betel-leaf symbolism is evidence of my necropolis theory that all seals indicate rituals for dead people. Indus sites are burial sites and not metropolises as popularly being imagined so far. (4)

In her latest e-book, Rekha Rao states that the leaf used in the leaf-messenger ritual is ‘Palasa tree leaf’. (5 p. location.4230) Verification of Palasa leaf picture shows that it is a trifoliate leaf and not a unifoliate leaf-like Betel leaf. The leaf messenger grapheme indicates that it is a unifoliate leaf with a Betel leaf shape.

Tammuz was a kind of messenger god.

At this stage, it is vital to recollect that ‘”Tammuz'” was also a kind of messenger god similar to the role of the leaf- messenger. Earlier, I have written an article about Tammuz; read the article, ‘Tammuz as the water carrier in Indus Valley civilization’, for more information. (7)

However, it looks like that this ‘Tammuz –water-carrier-symbol’should be corrected as a messenger god symbol. This water carrier symbol is probably a variant of ‘leaf-messenger-symbolism’, and this water-carrier-symbol’ is likely much older than ‘the leaf—messenger symbols.

In addition to the two variants above, there is a third symbol for the messenger god. Sign of a god with a ‘curved boot’. The curved boot was equivalent to the flying sandals. In Greek mythology, the god with flying sandal is the Greek messenger god ‘Hermes’ (Latin: Mercury).–

Figure : God Krishna is carrying a walking stick.

Picture courtesy –calendar picture of Century Plyboards company

I came across the above-given calendar picture recently (2018 calendar). See the picture of Krishna; he is supporting his right arm on a walking stick, which tallies perfectly with the IVC leaf god shown with the stick. Krishna was also a kind of messenger god, later gained importance and became a god of his stature.

Figure : Variations of god with the walking stick.

Picture courtesy – (8)

The above-given picture of Krishna with stick tallies well with the god with stick symbol of Indus seal inscriptions. A messenger god was likely with a walking stick in Indus Valley Civilization, later identified with Krishna. In my opinion, Krishna was a later god who arrived with the Greeks. Hercules is called Krishna in India. Note the similarity of ‘’labours of Hercules” with various Leela’s Krishna” majority of the labours tallies with leelas Krishna. Indian gods tend to copy the powers of earlier gods and assimilate the old gods into new god worship. This walking stick also could be one such composite character of a god.

The below-given table shows the statistical data on the ‘leaf-messenger’ symbol,

symbol	frequency	remarks
	91	Leaf -messenger – with a stick –
	35	Betel leaf messenger
	13	Betel leaf variant
	10	Betel leaf variant
	18	Leaf messenger -kavu (sacrifice)
	16	A variant of the above
	14	Leaf messenger – kedaga (shield)

The above-given table shows the variants of leaf-messenger symbolism. It looks like that in the earlier period of IVC, the messenger with yoke was in usage, but in the later period, the same was changed to leaf-messenger symbolism. But the meaning is the same. The leaf messenger symbolism coincides with the arrival of Vedic ideas.

1. Jeyakumar(Rudra). Rudra was the most important god of the Indus Valley Civilization. www.academia.edu. [Online] https://www.academia.edu/43654003/Rudra_was_the_most_important_god_of_Indus_Valley_Civilization.

2. booklounge.org. asvalayana-grihya-sutra. religions.booklounge.org/. [Online] November 2015. http://religions.booklounge.org/index.php/hinduism/asvalayana-grihya-sutra.html#_toc332755348.

3. indianscriptures.com. why-is-betel-leaf-paan-so-important-in-hindu-religion. indianscriptures.com. [Online] December 2015. http://www.indianscriptures.com/vedic-lifestyle/reasoning-customs/why-is-betel-leaf-paan-so-important-in-hindu-religion.

4. Jeyakumar(Necropolis). Necropolis_theory_on_Indus_Valley_Civilization. www.academia.edu. [Online] 2009. https://www.academia.edu/7773502/Necropolis_theory_on_Indus_Valley_Civilization.

5. Rekha. Symbolography in Indus seals. Symbolography in Indus seals(e-Book). s.l. : https://read.amazon.in/, 2015, p. 11736.

6. Jeyakumar(Tammuz-branch-symbol). Tammuz_is_represented_by_branch_symbol_in_Indus_Inscriptions. https://www.academia.edu. [Online] 2015. https://www.academia.edu/13644107/Tammuz_is_represented_by_branch_symbol_in_Indus_Inscriptions.

7. Jeyakumar(Tammuz-water-carrier-symbol). Tammuz_as_water_carrier_in_Indus_Valley_civilization. https://www.academia.edu/. [Online] 2015. https://www.academia.edu/13607680/Tammuz_as_water_carrier_in_Indus_Valley_civilization.

8. Parpola, Asko. Deciphering the Indus script. New York : Cambridge University Press, 2000.