A BOTANICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE IDENTITY OF SOMA

(NELUMBO NUCIFERA GAERTN.) BASED ON SCRIPTURAL AND

ICONOGRAPHIC RECORDS1
ANDREW MCDONALD

McDonald, Andrew (University of Texas at Austin, Plant Resources Center, 78712; e-mail
amcdon@mail.utexas.edu). A BOTANICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE IDENTITY OF SOMA (NELUMBO
NUCIFERA GAERTN.) BASED ON SCRIPTURAL AND ICONOGRAPHIC RECORDS. Economic Botany
58(Supplement):S147–S173, 2004. An examination of the mythic and artistic records of India
and Southeast Asia indicates that the famous psychotropic of the ancient Aryans was the eastern
lotus, Nelumbo nucifera. Vedic epithets, metaphors, and myths that describe the physical and
behavioral characteristics of the ‘soma’ plant as a sun, serpent, golden eagle, arrow, lightning
bolt, cloud, phallic pillar, womb, chariot, and immortal navel, relate individually or as a whole
to the eastern lotus. Since most Hindu and Buddhist gods and goddesses trace their origins
from the Vedas and have always shared close symbolic associations with Nelumbo, there is
reason to believe the divine status of this symbolic plant derives from India’s prehistoric past.
Key Words: India; lotus; narcotic plants; Nelumbo nucifera; soma; Vedas.

Asian historians have long been intrigued by
the religious customs of ancient Aryan peoples
and their celebrated habit of using a narcotic
plant to achieve spiritual revelations. Long be-
fore the advent of civilization, these famous no-
madic warriors were renowned for their sha-
manistic approach to the practice of religion, and
for their success in spreading their spiritual be-
liefs from the shorelines of the Caspian Sea to
the headwaters of the Indus and Ganges Rivers.
Distant communities of their itinerant clans were
ultimately assimilated into civilized states that
arose in northern India and Iran, the sacerdotal
classes of which, remaining true to their prehis-
toric traditions, proved intent on conserving the
archaic rites of their spiritual forebears. As a re-
sult, early Aryan priest guilds played a critical
role in the establishment of Brahmanic and Zo-
roastrian schools of religion, and in conveying
their prehistoric modes of religious thought into
the realms of human history.
Numerous written documents that descend
from early Aryan civilizations pertain to the tra-
ditional use and worship of a specific psychotro-
pic plant. Communities who spoke in dialects of
Indian origin, such as Sanskrit, referred to this
1 Received 17 January 2003; accepted 18 May 2003.
plant as soma, whereas those who spoke in lan-
guages of Persian origin, such as Avestan and
Pahlavi, referred to the plant as homa. But they
all spoke with the same sense of awe and rev-
erence for the same vegetative entity which they
believed was responsible for the creation of life
and the governance of natural forces. Hence
many modern scholars (Doniger 1967; James
1966; Zaehner 1961) are given to conclude that
much of what is believed and practiced by Brah-
manic and Zoroastrian communities in modern
times derives in no small part from the anti-
quated traditions of an ancient drug cult.
Most of what historians know about the role
of soma in the religious lives of early Aryan
peoples derives from an ancient text that is ar-
guably the oldest known written record of Indo-
European origin. Known as the Rg Veda, this
famous Sanskrit hymnal traces its origin from
around the turn of the 8th century BCE (Doniger
1967), during an age in which the practice of
literacy began to spread throughout India. Not-
withstanding the antiquity of this historical doc-
ument, it is also widely believed that the con-
tents of the Rg Veda are of a much older age,
as there is widespread agreement that most Ve-
dic songs date from India’s prehistoric past.
Many scholars date the Vedic verses from before

Economic Botany 58(Supplement) pp. S147–S173. 2004

䉷 2004 by The New York Botanical Garden Press, Bronx, NY 10458-5126 U.S.A.
S148 ECONOMIC BOTANY
the turn of the second millennium BCE (Parpola
1995; Witzel 1995), when Indo-Aryan clans de-
pended on oral forms of communication to
maintain their ‘sacred lore’ (or ‘Veda’). While
these rough estimations of the Rg Veda’s histor-
ical age elicit little disagreement in scholarly cir-
cles, they are at variance with the traditional per-
spectives of modern Brahmanic communities,
whose conservative members have always main-
tained that the Vedic hymns descend from the
immortal gods, and therefore trace from the
dawn of creation. In their point of view, the an-
cient songs embody the eternal truth (dharma or
rta) of the Aryan cosmos, and accordingly defy
any attempt to assign them a specific time or
place of origin. Brahmanic traditionalists insist
that the Rg Veda and its derivative texts—the
Sama Veda, Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda
(known collectively as the ‘Vedas’)—are the
root-source of all that is believed and practiced
by Indo-Aryan peoples and their direct descen-
dants. And they place equal credence in early
philosophical commentaries on these chants,
such as those that are found in the Upanisads
(known collectively as the Vedanta) and Brah-
manas.
Vedic hymns were originally composed by
prehistoric priest guilds to pay gratitude and rev-
erence to a host of gods and goddesses during
the ‘sacrifice’ of their sacred plant. As officiat-
ing priests prepared the milky juices of the soma
plant for ingestion, they chanted their traditional
hymns in unison to convey their appreciation for
the annual revival of their vegetative sacrament.
Most Vedic hymns were dedicated to specific
divinities that ruled over various forces of na-
ture, such as those that caused the sun to shine
(Sūrya), lightning to strike (Indra), rains to fall
(Parjanya), or rivers to flow (Sarasvatı̄). The
concerted efforts of these naturalistic powers
made possible the annual recurrence of the sa-
cred plant. Most of these Aryan gods and god-
desses belonged to one of two fundamental clas-
ses of deity, including those that inhabited the
heavenly realms of the material world, known
as the Devas or ‘Shining Ones’, and those that
belonged to the chthonic realms of the cosmos,
known variously as Vrtras (‘Encompassers’ or
‘Pervaders’), Druhs (‘Deceivers’; Gonda 1959;
Lahiri 1984), or Asuras2 (i.e., ‘Demoniacs’;
Macdonell 1995; Panikkar 1977). The Asuras
generally represented the powers of the earth,
and sought to retain the invigorating properties
[VOL. 58
of soma within the underworld of Earth. And
the Devas, in direct opposition to the Asuras,
represented the powers of the heavens, and
sought to liberate the plant from the bowels of
the earth. Since both classes of gods depended
mutually on the invigorating properties of soma
to maintain their immortal lives, they were des-
tined to wage pitched battles against each other
on an annual basis, thereby insuring that both
parties receive their yearly allotment of soma’s
immortalizing nectar. These episodic conflicts
resulted in the perpetuation of cycles of plant
growth in the Aryan world, and therefore the
perpetuation of life itself.
Vedic hymns were sung to celebrate the past
victories of the heroic Devas and to encourage
the heavenly host in their yearly assaults on the
Asuras, for without an annual triumph of the
sky-gods, the Aryan clans would be unable to
share in the treasures of soma. Prominent among
these gods was a solar-bodied spirit that inhab-
ited the stalks of the Aryan sacramental plant—
namely Soma, the ‘Lord of Plants’ (Vanaspati,
Ksetrapati, Virudhpati) and ‘Lord of Divine
Speech’ (Vācaspati)—whose golden body was
filled with the ‘essence’ (rasā3; Bosch 1960) of
living creation. Around 120 hymns of the Rg
Veda are dedicated exclusively to this vegetative
spirit, the remaining of which, amounting to
around 900 songs, were devoted to a host of
supportive celestial gods. Soma, as both a veg-
etative spirit and demiurge, was praised in Vedic
refrains for his willingness to sacrifice his veg-
etative body on behalf of the gods and mortals
alike, such that both parties might share in his
invigorating essence and enjoy everlasting life.4
But just as Soma was deemed to be the source
of immortal life for the gods, the gods were also
instrumental in maintaining the immortal life of
Soma. Hence Soma was identified as both the
cause and effect of the Aryan cosmos: both the
father5 and the child6 of the Aryan pantheon.
The practice of the ancient soma-sacrifice was
as beneficial to the Aryan gods7 as the Aryan
priest caste,8 since both parties enjoyed a height-
ened sense of strength,9 vitality,10 joy,11 intelli-
gence and wealth12 when they imbibed the vi-
talizing virtues of the divine plant. Indeed, Vedic
hymns often proclaim that adept members of the
soma cult attained omniscience,13 perfection,14
and immortality15 while under the sway of the
plant’s inebriating properties, which was tanta-
mount to saying that they had become as gods.
2004] MCDONALD: THE IDENTITY OF SOMA
One of various Sanskrit terms that was used to
distinguish an ‘immortal’ god from a mortal
creature, amrta,16 or ‘non-death’ (a-mrta), was
also employed as a nominative to refer to the
intoxicating beverage (also known as ‘soma’)
which Aryan priests prepared from the milky
saps of their famous plant. Thus, Aryan bards
used the same terms to refer to the beverage and
the experience of bliss; for to know the plant
was to know the nature of the gods; and to know
the nature of the gods was to be a god. This
general theme is reflected in an oft-quoted Vedic
refrain—‘‘We have drunk soma, we have be-
come immortal; we have gone to the light, we
have discovered the gods’’17—which generations
of Vedic bards once chanted as they convened
for their ecstatic revelries. This divine state of
being was described in terms of ‘‘a vision in a
dream,’’18 or as a transcendental experience that
transported the soul to a land devoid of hunger,
sorrow and strife.19
Vedic bards composed and chanted their an-
cient hymns with the expressed intention of con-
cealing the identity and secrets of their holy sac-
rament.20 They accomplished this objective by
holding their sacramental rites in closed quarters
and by developing codified forms of speech to
describe the material character of their divine
plant in cryptic and symbolic terms. Soma was
often identified with a variety of planetary orbs
or charismatic animals in order to confuse in-
dividuals who were not versed in the mythic lore
of the priest caste. The plant was often identi-
fied, for example, as the sun and moon, clouds,
lightning bolts, or a variety of animals, including
a serpent, eagle, lion, or commonly, a bull. The
interplay of these symbolic images in Vedic my-
thology proved effective in obscuring the vital
source of Aryan inspiration, both in ancient and
modern times, as the secret of soma’s botanical
identity remains a mystery to modern students
of Asian religions and history. While numerous
linguists have tried their hand at cracking the
esoteric codes of ancient Aryan bards (Brough
1971; Falk 1989; Flattery and Schwartz 1989),
along with mythologists (Doniger 1967; Mala-
moud 1991), anthropologists (Emboden 1972;
Furst 1972), and popular commentators (Mc-
Kenna 1992; Wasson 1967), the enigmatic iden-
tity of the Aryans’ sacred plant has yet to be
resolved.
While modern commentators have argued en-
ergetically in favor of a number of competing
S149
hypotheses regarding soma’s botanical identity,
consensus has not yet been achieved as to what
specific Asian plant was the object of early Ary-
an devotions. Many plant species that have been
proposed thus far as possible soma candidates
have proven unable to elicit psychoactive re-
sponses in human beings, such as rhubarb
(Rheum), grapes (Vitis), pomegranates (Punica),
moonseeds (Cocculus), ironweeds (Vernonia),
hops (Humulus), ginseng, and various milk-
weeds (Doniger 1968; Flattery and Schwartz
1989; Nyberg 1995). But various plants that are
known to produce psychoactive properties, such
as marijuana (Cannabis sativa L.), Ephedra,
opium poppy (Papaver somniferum L.), Syrian
rue (Peganum harmala L.), ginseng (Panax),
and the fly-agaric fungus, Amanita muscaria
(Fr.) S.F. Gray (Doniger 1968; Falk 1989; Flat-
tery and Schwartz 1989; Mahdihassan 1981;
Nyberg 1995; Spess 2000), continue to provoke
heated debates and discussions among linguists
and students of the ancient Orient. Such a di-
verse assemblage of plants and fungi might sug-
gest to the casual observer that the pursuit of
soma’s historical identity is bound to prove fu-
tile. Indeed, this conclusion has been reached by
a number of modern commentators (Brough
1971; Eggeling 1978; Keith 1989; Macdonell
and Keith 1982), some of whom suggest that the
plant may have gone extinct, or that early intro-
ductions of substitute and imposter herbs has ob-
scured the issue beyond redemption (Brough
1971; Doniger 1968). These pessimistic view-
points are not, however, without their detractors,
as it is difficult to imagine that a plant which
once extended from the Caspian Sea to the Gan-
getic plains of northern India could have been
driven to extinction. Nor does it seem likely that
such a wide variety of cultures in ancient India
and Persia could have easily lost or forgotten the
primary object of their religious devotions.
Since historical records indicate that the practice
of the soma sacrifice endured well into the clas-
sical and medieval periods (500 BCE–1500 CE)
of Indian and Persian history (see below), stu-
dents of the ancient Orient can only surmise that
the vegetative source of early Aryan poetry and
mysticism is still living among us.
Some modern Sanskritists attribute their lack
of success in determining the botanical identity
of soma to difficulties that they encounter in
translating archaic forms of Sanskrit. Perhaps as
much blame can be attributed, however, to the
S150 ECONOMIC BOTANY
fact that a detailed botanical inquiry into the
matter has never been undertaken. Nyberg
(1995) is perhaps the only 20th century botanist
who evaluated the issue from a strictly biologi-
cal perspective, but he confesses to a speciali-
zation in plant chemistry, and therefore bases his
viewpoints on the psychotropic properties of the
plant. Like many modern linguists, Nyberg con-
cludes that soma was probably one of various
species of Ephedra, owing largely to the histor-
ical use of this stimulating plant in the medicinal
traditions of Asian cultures. This popular per-
spective was recently challenged, however, by a
microbiologist (Spess 2000), who argues that the
mystery plant of the Vedas was probably the
eastern lotus (Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn.) and the
Egyptian lotus (Nymphaea nouchalii Burm. f.).
Spess supports this argument by recognizing the
divine reputations of these plants in the mythic
and religious traditions of Egypt and Eurasia,
their use as symbols for gods of ecstasy and im-
mortal life, and their psychoactive properties.
Neither of the aforementioned scientists have
presented, however, a critical review of the mor-
phological issues that surround the question of
Soma’s enigmatic identity, and it is here that
most discussions on the enigmatic identity of
soma have ended in a draw.
To more fully explore some of these outstand-
ing issues, the present discussion analyzes
soma’s physical nature from a botanical per-
spective. Information is drawn as liberally from
the Vedic record as from mythical accounts of
the plant during post-Vedic periods of Indian
history (800 BCE–1000 CE), including assess-
ments of the plant in the Brahmanas, Upanisads,
epics (Mahabharata and Ramayana) and Pura-
nas. Since various schools of art in India and
Southeast Asia also portray mythic themes that
have a direct bearing on Vedic identity of the
soma plant, these too are considered in detail,
drawing from a variety of iconographic tradi-
tions throughout India and Southeast Asia.
BOTANICAL ATTRIBUTES OF SOMA IN
THE RG VEDA
Although modern publications rarely cite the
pioneering works of Alfred Hillebrandt, Max
Müller, and Hermann Oldenberg, early discus-
sions of these 19th century Indologists often
provide a more comprehensive perspective on
soma’s botanical character than do treatments of
the 20th century. Hillebrandt (1990, I:121–266)
[VOL. 58
begins his insightful commentaries by examin-
ing a perennial controversy that continues to
provoke debates, namely the question as to
whether soma was an upright or creeping plant.
Although classical descriptions of soma often
suggest that the plant was a ‘creeping’ herb—
i.e., somavallı̄ or somalatā (Brough 1971; Don-
iger 1967; Wasson 1967; Wujastik 1998)— most
Vedic verses describe Soma Pavamāna (‘Soma
Clear-flowing’, Panikkar 1977) as a lustrous
‘‘pillar of heaven’’ (divo dharunam21) or a ‘prop’
(skambha22) of the sky. Many translators assume
that the ascendant stems of the plant grew to
considerable heights, as some verses describe
the plant as either a ‘tree’ (vrksa)23 or a shoot
(amśu) that reaches high into the heavens.24 But
other commentators are inclined to agree that
soma lacked woody growth, owing to descrip-
tive allusions to the plant as an herb (i.e., vı̄rudh,
ósadhi; Doniger 1967). The latter assumption is
certainly supported by frequent descriptions of
soma as either a reed25 [vāná26 (Hillebrandt
1990) or nada27 (Macdonell and Keith 1982)] or
pointed arrow28 (Hillebrandt 1990); for Soma
stood like an arrow among plants29 when he
raised his sharpened point into the heavens.30
Moreover, since Vedic bards employed a variety
of different Sanskrit words for ‘arrow’ in this
illusionary context (isu, śarya, śaru, and bāna;
Macdonell and Keith 1982), it may reasonably
be assumed that the plant produced narrow,
straight, ascendant, un-branched stalks. We may
also surmise that soma’s stalks grew as solitary
shoots, since the image of an arrow hardly calls
to mind the figure of a branching tree.
While many modern commentators have em-
phasized the fact that the pillared character of
Vedic Soma is inconsistent with post-Vedic
characterizations of the plant as a creeper (Don-
iger 1968), this viewpoint does not preclude the
possibility that soma may have produced erect
and procumbent shoots. Although this distinct
prospect was dismissed emphatically by Wasson
(1967) and Doniger (1967) in their compelling
and provocative study, Soma the Divine Mush-
room of Immortality, they did so in support of a
hypothesis that identified soma as a narcotic fun-
gus (Amanita muscaria). While both of these au-
thors insist that the Rg Veda never alludes to the
creeping nature of soma’s stems, a critical re-
view of the Vedic record suggests otherwise. To
be sure, the creeping nature of the soma plant is
only implied in metaphorical terms, but as al-
2004] MCDONALD: THE IDENTITY OF SOMA
ready noted, this is standard fare in the Vedic
hymns. For example, one hymn refers to Soma
as an immortal serpent that slips from his an-
cient skin when he raises his brilliant pillar into
the heavens,31 presumably implying that the
plant produced an erect stem from a prostrate
runner. Such an interpretation is certainly con-
sistent with various hymns and commentaries of
the ancient Satapatha Brāhmana32 (ca. 8th c.
BCE) that specifically identify Soma as a Vedic
serpent known as Vrtra33 (Lahiri 1984), a
chthonic god whose primary role in Indo-Aryan
mythology is to imprison soma’s invigorating
pillars within his coiling body. Vrtra was rec-
ognized as a powerful underworld spirit that is
vanquished by the powerful thunderbolts of the
Devas (see below), strikes from which provoke
the serpent to release the plant. And since Vedic
verses refer to Vrtra as a creeping plant34 (vra-
tati; Macdonell and Keith 1982), there is little
reason to question the relevancy of classical al-
lusions to soma’s natural creeping habits (i.e.,
Śrautasūtra Samhita; Wujastik 1998:176). In-
deed, the Aryans occasionally described the Ve-
das as the ‘wisdom of a serpent’ (sarpa-vidyā).35
A critical examination of various refrains re-
veals that the plant probably produced procum-
bent shoots with prominent nodes and inter-
nodes, as numerous verses refer to the ‘jointed’
character of the soma’s stems36 (i.e., párvan, pá-
rus; Falk 1989). Other hymns describe the dis-
tinctive nature of the plant’s natural growth hab-
it: i.e., ‘‘joint by joint, knot by knot’’37 (Hille-
brandt 1990). Although allusions of such type
are clearly inconsistent with descriptions of
soma’s arrow-like (un-segmented) shoots, they
may well apply to the plant’s decumbent rhi-
zomes or stolons.
Although stem characteristics have limited
use in identifying a plant at a generic or species
level, we are fortunate that numerous Vedic
verses make repeated references to a plant struc-
ture that is much more useful in this regard,
namely the ‘flower’, or ándhas38 (⫽ anthos Gr.,
anthus L.). Hillebrandt (1990) was justified in
assuming that soma was an angiosperm, as there
can be no doubt that the flower belonged to the
sacred plant (sómasya andhas39) and had ‘mad-
dening’ properties (anhaso made40). While it is
difficult to understand why this particular feature
of the mystery plant has been afforded so little
attention by linguists, such has always been the
case. In fact, Wasson (1967) was emphatic in
S151
rejecting the possibility that soma was a flow-
ering plant, as it naturally weakened his hypoth-
esis that the ‘soma plant’ was a fungus. Never-
theless, the Vedic record speaks for itself, and
required of Wasson that he at least recognize
that the bards made frequent reference to the
plant’s flowers: i.e., ‘‘It is as though the Aryans
called Soma the (sic) flower’’ (Wasson 1967).
The flourishing boughs of soma were appar-
ently colorful to the Aryan eye, as Vedic hymns
often reach a lyrical crescendo when they pro-
claim the wondrous beauty of soma’s golden41
(hári, hı́ranya-rupa) and ruddy42 (aruna, arusa,
phālguna) radiance. These specific hues do not
call to mind, of course, the image of a photo-
synthetic or woody stem, but there is widespread
agreement that they relate to aerial portions of
the plant’s ascendant shoots. Soma’s golden ra-
diance established a basis for the god’s intimate
mythic and symbolic association with a Vedic
sun-god by the name of Sūrya,43 whose golden
and ruddy orb mirrored the mythic image of the
plant (Bhawe 1957). Vedic hymns frequently
identify Soma as either a child of the sun44 or as
the sun-god himself45 (Hillebrandt 1990; Wasson
1967), as he exhibited the aspect of a sun46 when
he raised his golden eye upon an arrow’s shaft47
and adorned his resplendent body with brilliant
rays of gold48 (Wasson 1967). Poetic allusions
of this type make no sense, of course, if one
attempts to envisage the plant in terms of a pho-
tosynthetic stem; but they do call to mind the
image of a golden and red flower that has been
raised upon a pillared shoot. Given the proba-
bility that soma was an angiosperm, former
identifications of the mystery plant as either a
fungus or cone-bearing plant (i.e., Amanita and
Ephedra; Nyberg 1995; Wasson 1967) are
doubtful. There is also reason to doubt the rel-
evancy of various narcotic plants that have en-
tered into the debates, such as marijuana, Syrian
rue, or ginseng, since none of these plants pro-
duces reed-like or creeping stems with milky la-
tex,49 or resplendent, sun-like flowers.
Since the original composers of the Vedic
hymns lived in temperate-montane regions of
northwestern India, there is also reason to reject
most of the tropical plant candidates that have
been proposed over the years. Vedic verses
make clear that the homeland of the Indo-Ary-
ans was located in the Punjab of modern India
and Pakistan (i.e., the panch-ab, or land of the
‘Five Rivers’), where five major tributaries of
S152 ECONOMIC BOTANY
the Indus River convene to form the northwest-
ern boundary of the Indian subcontinent. While
it is generally acknowledged that the soma plant
was likely a native plant of the Himalayan
mountains (Hillebrandt 1990; Wasson 1967),
and was specifically associated with montane
habitats,50 Brough (1971) was correct in empha-
sizing that Soma must have lived in the valleys
of the Indus, Sarasvati, Ganges and Jumna Riv-
ers. Falk (1989) agreed that the soma plant must
have grown in aquatic habitats, since hundreds
of refrains refer to soma’s habit of dwelling
alongside river-banks,51 or indeed, within the
waters of the Punjab’s rivers,52 streams,53 and
lakes,54 such as Lake Śaryanāvān55 (‘Lake of Ar-
rows’ or ‘Lake of Reeds’). Hence Soma was oc-
casionally recognized as a ‘child of the waters’
(apām napāt),56 a babe of the proverbial ‘seven
rivers’,57 or a Lord of Rivers58 (Bhawe 1957).
Vedic hymns also specify that Soma was the
child of the mighty Sindhu59 (Indus River), a riv-
er whose name derives from the Sanskrit term
for a ‘drop’ (indu) of soma.60 And as Brough
(1971) would note, yet other rivers of the Punjab
were named in honor of the sacred plant, such
as the Amśumati River,61 whose name translates
as ‘River of Soma shoots’, and the Rasā River,62
whose name refers to the ‘essence’ or ‘juices’
of the plant of the gods.
Since the soma plant was probably an aquatic
angiosperm that bore the aspect of a sun, we
may reasonably reject all but one of the afore-
mentioned plant candidates that have been iden-
tified as soma candidates over the last two cen-
turies. The eastern lotus East, or Nelumbo nu-
cifera, as proposed by Spess (2000), is the only
plant species that satisfies all of the mythical and
metaphorical attributes of the Aryan’s mystery
plant in the Vedas, Brahmanas and Upanisads.
Moreover, this is the only plant candidate pro-
posed thus far that can claim a sacred status
among Brahmanic and Zoroastrian communities.
In short, the eastern lotus is a robust, aquatic that
produces erect, lactiferous stalks (Fig. 1a, c).
The plant’s submerged rhizomes are decidedly
jointed in character (Fig. 1d) and bear a close
resemblance to a creeping serpent, especially
during the beginning of each growth cycle (Fig.
1c). The plant’s budding shoots exhibit the dis-
tinct aspect of an emergent arrow when they rise
from their aquatic substrates (Fig. 1a), and each
of these shoots eventually develops into a gold-
en and ruddy blossom that bears the distinct as-
[VOL. 58
pect of a sun (Fig. 1b). Lotus flowers are unique-
ly distinguished in the plant kingdom by their
presentation of an expanded, golden-pigmented
receptacle that is brightly ‘adorned with rays’ of
golden stamens inside a white, cream, or ruddy
perianth. And to be sure, all of these character-
istics are consistent with Aryan descriptions of
soma.
Although our present understanding of the
chemistry of Nelumbo nucifera is only cursory,
preliminary investigations reveal that this plant
species produces a variety of psychoactive com-
pounds. Among these constituents are benzyli-
soquinoline alkaloids, such as aporphine, proa-
porphine, nuciferine (Gibbs 1974; Shamma
1972), which are structurally similar to opiate
alkaloids of the poppy family: i.e., morphine,
codeine, and thebaine. Aporphine invokes a va-
riety of physiological reactions in animals, in-
cluding emesis and euphoria in humans (Sham-
ma 1972), and reduction of blood pressure in
cats (Shamma and Moniot 1978). It is also note-
worthy that apomorphines are thought to be the
psychoactive agents in Nymphaea, several spe-
cies of which have been employed for entheo-
genic purposes by the Mayans of Mexico, Egyp-
tians, and various peoples of the Near and Mid-
dle East (Diaz 1975; Emboden 1981; McDonald
2002). Hence a preliminary chemical profile of
Nelumbo is consistent with the hypothesis that
Soma is the eastern lotus.
Nelumbo nucifera has a natural distribution
that extends from the Volga River delta on the
shorelines of the Caspian Sea to the eastern
shores of Asia. This range encompasses and sur-
passes the historical domains of prehistoric Ary-
an communities. Furthermore, the plant is pres-
ently a dominant element in riparian and marshy
vegetations of the Punjab, much as it was in the
prehistoric past, as indicated in early Vedic
scriptures63 and symbolic renderings of the plant
species on ancient seals that trace from the Indus
River civilization around the turn of the 2nd mil-
lennium BCE. There can be little doubt, there-
fore, that the plant played some sort of mythical
and/or religious role in the distant past. More-
over, the age of these seals correlates with the
precise time and place of Indo-Aryan bards in
the Punjab. One of these small but elaborate ob-
jects of art portrays the sacred lotus in a highly
stylized manner (Fig. 2a), emphasizing the
plant’s pillared stalk, reflexed petals (or persis-
tent stamens following anthesis), and flattened,
2004] MCDONALD: THE IDENTITY OF SOMA S153

Fig. 1. Morphology of the lotus. a. Like soma of the Vedas, the eastern lotus is an aquatic plant that produces
upright, reedy, lactiferous, flowering stalks. Its large and showy flowers exhibit red and white petals, an expanded
golden receptacle, and numerous golden stamens. Pokhara, Nepal. b. A full-blown lotus flower suggests the
image of a radiant sun. c. Upright lotus stalks grow from a network of serpentine rhizomes. Modern Kashmiri
natives harvest long runners of the plant to make starch-based glues. Dal Lake, Srinagar, India. d. The thickened,
segmented rhizomes of Nelumbo suggest the ‘nodes’ or parva of soma.

orbicular receptacle with numerous ovarian pro-
tuberances (Fig. 1a, b). We note that the plant
shares a close symbolic relationship with a pair
of horned dragons, the general character of
which is consistent with mythical descriptions of
dragons in Vedic64 and Zoroastrian mythology
(see below). It is also noteworthy that these
same prehistoric symbols, including the seven-
leaved fig tree that overshadows the pillared lo-
tus (Fig. 2a), are standard symbolic motifs in
various Hindu and Buddhist schools of art and
mythology, the origins of which are traced di-
rectly from an early Aryan heritage (Coomar-
aswamy 1928, 1931, 1979).
SOMA MOTIFS IN BRAHMANIC AND
BUDDHIST ICONOGRAPHY
The botanical determination of soma as Nel-
umbo nucifera is bound to have far-reaching im-
pacts on our current understandings of eastern
religion, as it is widely acknowledged that the
image of the lotus has long served as a versatile
S154 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL. 58

Fig. 2. Symbolic and Metaphorical Attributes of Soma. a. An Indus River seal portrays the lotus plant as a
pillared floral motif with a dimpled pericarp (Fig. 1b) and reflexed petals (or possibly persistent stamens follow-
ing anthesis). A seven-leaved fig tree forms a canopy over the plant. Two horned dragons extend from the
plant’s stalk in a symbolic context that is consistent with Vedic imagery. Indus River valley, ca. 2000 BCE.
(National Museum, New Delhi). b. Buddhists adopted the image of a lotus pillar to symbolize the ancient Vedic
concept of dharma. Note that the enlightening stalk produces a sun-like flower and two opposing serpentine
tendrils. Sanci, N gate, Madhya Pradesh, India 110 BCE. c. A pyrogenic shaft with a three-tipped arrowhead
symbolizes the divine powers and ‘truth’ (dharma) of the Hindu trinity. Note that the cosmic arrow emerges
from a lotus flower and produces a blossom at its apex. Mulchok Temple, Patan, Nepal. 17th c. d. Ancient
2004] MCDONALD: THE IDENTITY OF SOMA S155

and important religious symbol in the mythic
and iconographic traditions of the East. Since
the advent of literacy in India,65 the plant has
symbolized the human achievement of spiritual
enlightenment (bodhi), bliss (ananda), and tran-
scendence (brahman or nirvana). Moreover, the
plant has symbolized a host of Vedic gods and
goddesses in the mythic traditions of the Hindus,
Jains, and Buddhists. Given that the latter reli-
gions trace their origins from early Indo-Aryan
traditions, we can only assume that this pre-em-
inent symbol of immortal life and spiritual
emancipation derives from a common prehistor-
ic source. This proposition is supported by the
many and various ways in which disparate reli-
gious traditions of classical India have integrated
the lotus into their mythic and iconographic tra-
ditions, and by the consistent manner in which
the plant has been depicted as a flaming arrow,
radiant pillar, solar orb, and immortal serpent
over the ages.
To fully appreciate the close iconic and myth-
ic connections between the lotus and soma, it is
important to note from the outset that Brahmanic
communities have never recognized a distinction
between Vedic and ‘Hindu’ traditions of reli-
gion. Brahmins have always acknowledged the
Vedas are fundamental to everything that they
believe and practice.66 Furthermore, it is equally
important to recognize that the soma-plant con-
tinued to play an essential role in myths of the
classical epics and Puranas in post-Vedic India
(Panikkar 1977). For example, a popular section
of the Mahabharata known as the Bhagavad
Gita (‘Song of the Creator’, ca. 1st c. CE) makes
clear that Visnu, the Vedic Father of the Hindu
pantheon, was none other than Soma himself.67
Just as Vedic verses recognize Visnu as a lover
of Soma68 and a revealer of the Vedas,69 the Ma-
habharata (ca. 1st c. CE) recognize Visnu as a
drinker of Soma70 and the primal source and ma-
terial embodiment of the Vedas and the Upani-
sads.71 Indeed, Visnu is explicitly identified as
the ‘‘poured oblation’’72 which soma-drinkers
seek to enter into paradise.73 Thus we can be
sure that the ancient gods and religious practices
of the Vedic period were relevant to Indian my-
thographers during the turn of the 1st century
CE.
As a general rule, the gods of classical India
are as intimately associated with the sacred lotus
as the Vedic pantheon is associated with soma.
This is clearly revealed in Puranic and epical
tales that date from around the 5th century BCE,
and no less so in the arts, which begin to leave
their most revealing traces across the Indian
landscape around the turn of the 2nd century
BCE. It has long been recognized that Brahman-
ic communities did not leave a substantial icon-
ographic record of their gods until the Andhra
and Gupta Periods (1st–5th c.; Lee 1994), and
that the earliest known depictions of the Vedic
pantheon occur initially among monastic caves
and funerary mounds of Buddhist communities
from the 3rd–1st centuries BCE (Harle 1987:26–
31; Lee 1994:87). The domination of Vedic gods
among Buddhist sanctuaries at Sanci, Bharut,
Mathura, Bhubaneswar, and Bhaja underscores
the fact that the Aryan pantheon was no less
relevant to Buddhist and Jain communities than
it was to Brahmanic communities. This point of
fact is also revealed in the oldest known bio-
graphical accounts (2nd–1st c. BCE) of the latest
and most famous of Buddhas, Siddhartha Gota-
ma, whose mythic character and pedigree is ex-
plicitly defined as Aryan. Siddhartha was born
to the Śaka clan (the Sacae of whom Herodotus
speaks74) under the patronym of Gotama, indi-
cating that he was a descendant of an important
Aryan lineage that was responsible for the com-
position of hundreds of Vedic hymns (i.e., the
Gotamas; Macdonell and Keith 1982). One of
the oldest known accounts of Siddhartha’s fab-
ulous life in the Buddhacarita (1st c. BCE)
makes clear that the Prince’s father was both a
drinker of soma and a knower of bliss;75 hence
the birth of the sovereign’s divine son was lik-
ened to that of a Vedic god,76 both literally and
figuratively (Coomaraswamy 1979). Numerous
doctrinal texts of the same canon acknowledge

←
devotees of Sūrya envisaged their sun-god’s solar chariot wheel as a lotus flower. Konarak, Orissa, India. 13th
century. e. The vajra or ‘thunderbolt’ of various Indian gods is symbolized by opposing lotus flowers. The
perianths emit a three-dimensional trident from opposite ends of the bolt. Patan, Nepal. Medieval Period. f.
Himalayan painters frequently associate lotus flowers with billowy clouds. Gods of Brahmanic and Buddhist
traditions often drink the elixir of immortality on their floral throne. Kathmandu, Nepal. 20th c.
S156 ECONOMIC BOTANY
that Siddhartha lived in close contact with ‘thir-
ty-three’ Devas and Asuras,77 and that the whole
of the Vedic pantheon bore witness to the sage’s
‘great awakening’ (mahasambodhi) on the day
that he climbed upon his lotus-throne (i.e., the
golden ‘Wheel of Awakening’, or bodhi-manda)
to achieve enlightenment (Majjimha Nikaya
I.21; Bhikku Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi
1995). Since that wondrous and auspicious day,
the Buddha has been recognized by both Brah-
manic and Buddhist traditionalists as an Aryan
‘god of gods’ (devati-deva).78
While many modern historians are inclined to
recognize Siddhartha Gotama as an historical
figure that reformed Brahmanic traditions by an
atheistic approach to religion, such an outlook
misses the spiritual significance of the famous
sage on both mythic and historical grounds
(Coomaraswamy 1979). It has been widely ac-
knowledged, for example, that early ‘aniconic’
schools of Buddhist art employ Vedic themes,
symbols and mythic imagery to illustrate the
life-stages and spiritual achievements of Sid-
dhartha’s mystical life. This fact is clearly ex-
emplified by the four famous gateways to an an-
cient Buddhist stupa at Sanci (1st c. BCE),
which are covered with images of Vedic gods
and goddesses and surmounted by numerous lo-
tus columns (Fig. 2b). The latter images repre-
sent the abiding truth (dharma) and awakened
mind (bodhi-citta; Foucher 1994; Harle 1987;
Lee 1994) of an attained master of the universe
(cakravartin). One observes two superimposed
tridents (triśulas) upon the floral ‘wheel of
awakening’, both of which symbolize the three
fundamental principles of Buddhist tradition
(i.e., triratna, or ‘triple jewel’): namely the Bud-
dha, his Truth (Dharma), and the Buddha’s Mo-
nastic Order (Sangha). Hence the image of the
pillared lotus at Sanci is meant to embody the
whole of early Buddhist beliefs and doctrines.
This ancient motif is essentially indistinguish-
able in form and function from early Brahmanic
(or ‘Hindu’) symbols of dharma (Fig. 2c, 3b),
the most popular of which portrays a pillared,
blazing arrow that occasionally sustains itself
within a full-blown blossom. It may be noted
that this lotiformed pillar of truth sustains a full-
blown flower as well, and that its general aspect
is reminiscent of Soma’s mythic nature as an
arrow-like pillar of dharma (Fig. 2c). Since the
flower also exhibits the symbolic brilliance of a
sun, we are given to suspect that the sacred lotus
[VOL. 58
shares a close mythic and symbolic relationship
with Soma. These undeniable connections are
further reflected in the etymological relationship
between the Sanskrit words for ‘pillar’ (dharu-
na) and ‘truth’ (dharma), both of which share
the same word-root, dhr, meaning to ‘prop’ or
‘support’: i.e., Soma’s sun-like prop of the heav-
ens.
In classical Hindu mythology, Śiva stands out
among the Brahmanic pantheon as the principal
wielder of the lotiformed trident (pillar of dhar-
ma). He employs this spiritual weapon to create
and destroy delusions of the material world,
thereby revealing the mysteries of his immortal
soul (Brahman) and the Vedas. Indeed, various
myths specifically identify the three-pronged
weapon of Śiva as a pillared sun, as soma, or
indeed, as the lotus itself79 (Fig. 3b). Other tales
identify Śiva’s flaming arrow as a ‘phallus’, or
linga, whose cosmic shaft produces a ‘semen’
(retas) of cosmic proportions that burns with the
energies of natural creation. Since classical texts
specifically state that the retas of Śiva is the seed
of Soma,80 the consumption of which reveals the
mystical secrets of the Vedas,81 we can be sure
that the seminal essence of Śiva is equivalent to
the seminal essence of Soma.
When Śiva wields this flaming trident as a
weapon against the Asuras in classical Indian
mythology, he often goes by the name of Śarva,
or ‘Archer’. And we can be sure that Śiva’s veg-
etative character derives in part from the mythic
and organic nature of Soma, since soma-plants
were occasionally called Śarva82 in the Vedas.
Soma once shared his vegetative arrows with a
variety of Vedic gods, the most pre-eminent of
which, Indra,83 was identified as both a storm-
god and sun-god. Indra would employ his triply-
tipped shafts84 (trikakubh; Coomaraswamy
1979) to pierce the bodies of dragons, thereby
liberating Soma from the underworld of the ser-
pent-demons. Yet Indra’s three-pronged shafts
were also said to arise from the earth in a jointed
configuration85 and to glitter in the air,86 in a
manner that smacks of Soma’s physical nature.87
Indeed, one hymn draws no distinction between
these two gods (i.e., Indra-Soma88), and there-
fore leads us to assume that Indra’s potent tri-
dent must relate in some way to Soma’s immor-
talizing stalks. This assumption finds support in
various Brahmanic schools of art, which con-
ventionally portray the arrows of Indra, Śiva,
and Soma as stylized lotus stalks (Fig. 5b, 2c,
2004] MCDONALD: THE IDENTITY OF SOMA
3b, 4b, respectively). And in the case of Indra,
one notes that the god’s three-pronged arrow-
head is a stylized lotus flower, and that the floral
prongs of the brilliant weapon impale the body
of a three-headed Vedic dragon known as Viś-
varūpa (Fig. 5b). By this cosmic act, Soma’s
golden flowers are released from the bodies of
diabolical serpents that haunted the banks of the
Punjab’s rivers89 (Lahiri 1984).
The vegetative arrows of Indra and Soma are
often shot from an elixir-laden chariot that be-
longed to a famous Vedic sun-god: Sūrya.90 This
mythic theme relates, no doubt, to the fact that
Soma was a child of this eminent sun-god, and
that both of these deities shimmered in gold
when they ascended from the dark recesses of
the Earth on a vegetative axis.91 This sun-and-
flower relationship is further developed by iden-
tifying Soma as the chariot itself,92 a theme
which seems to imply that the vehicle of the sun
was a plant structure. This allusion is certainly
consistent with artistic impressions of Sūrya’s
golden chariot at the famous temple of the sun
at Karnak (Orissa, Indian), where the celestial
vehicle of the Aryan pantheon is fashioned in
the image of a lotus-hubbed wheel of creation
(Fig. 2d, 5a).
The sun is only one of various celestial bodies
that share close symbolic associations with
Soma in Vedic mythology. Other hymns de-
scribe Soma as a lightning bolt (vajra or vid-
yut),93 whose shafts of gold were shot into aquat-
ic dragons94 to provoke the release of soma’s in-
vigorating shoots.95 Variations on this mythic
theme pervade the Rg Veda, and have long been
the source of conjecture and contentious discus-
sions. Indeed, it has been widely recognized that
this same motif is a standard theme in the mythic
traditions of Semitic and Indo-European cultures
from Europe to southern Asia. While most Vedic
commentators interpret this mythic image as an
allusion to the opening of rain-clouds, or per-
haps the swelling of meandering (i.e., serpen-
tine) rivers (Hillebrandt 1990; Lahiri 1984; Mac-
donell 1995; Oldenberg 1993), neither of these
explanations accounts for the integral role of
Soma in this cosmic act. Nor do they explain the
peculiar manner in which Soma’s bolt emerges
from rivers and lakes,96 or how a lightning bolt
could possibly spill forth ambrosia (amrta).97
One can only assume, nevertheless, that the
golden vajras of Soma and Indra relate in some
obscure way to the plant of the gods.98
S157
Although the physical attributes of a lightning
bolt do not readily call to mind the image of a
flower, this is precisely how Brahmanic and
Buddhist schools of art have portrayed the va-
jras of Soma, Indra, and various Buddhas. Ico-
nographers of both religious traditions depict the
lightning bolt of Aryan gods as a double-ended
lotus blossom, the opposing perianths of which
produce either three or four99 rays of light (Fig.
2e, 5b). This motif seems to mirror the mythic
image of Indra and Soma’s triply-tipped shafts
of vegetative light,100 and therefore implies that
the cosmic arrow, invincible bolt, and sacred
flower are homologous attributes. Since light-
ning bolts are normally associated with clouds
and storms rather than rivers and lakes, we
might expect soma to share some sort of myth-
ical relationship with these specific atmospheric
forces. Indeed, the Vedas assert that that Soma
was born from clouds,101 or that he robed his
golden body in clouds when he attained his lofty
fame.102 In so doing, he fecundates the Earth
with a generous outpouring of amrta.103
As might be expected, only one plant has ever
been associated with clouds in the arts of Hindu
and Buddist peoples, the sacred lotus. This as-
sociation is commonly encountered in lotus
mandala paintings of Brahmanic and Buddhist
communities in the Himalaya Mountains, both
of which traditions portray Indra (Vajradhara,
or ‘Bearer of the Bolt’) and other Aryan sun-
gods as lotus-throned, cloud-born Devas (Fig.
2f). Indra often displays a golden bolt in one of
his hands and a bell in the other, so as to identify
his floral throne as both the source of the bolt
and the cosmic womb of creation (respectively).
The physical union of the bolt and bell, like the
conjugal union of the god and goddess, results
in a copious outpouring of lotus nectar and the
creation of life on earth. While Indra attains bliss
through the release of his seed into his consort’s
flower, the goddess attains bliss by drinking a
cup of her god’s invigorating seed (i.e., the nec-
tar of the gods). Although this fertility symbol
is most frequently encountered in medieval and
modern paintings of Himalayan communities, it
clearly traces from the Atharva Veda, which
originally recognized Soma as a bolt-bearing,104
celestial spirit that spilt his cosmic seed into a
golden ‘womb of plenty’.105
The soma-laden bolts of Soma and Indra play
a dual role in mythic traditions of the Aryans,
in the sense that they spell doom for serpentine
S158 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL. 58

Fig. 3. Artistic Renderings of Vedic Gods. a. Agni, the Vedic god of spiritual fire (tapas), is often portrayed
as a brahmin with flaming shoulders. Like Indra (Fig. 5b), he displays a lotiformed trident, vanquished serpent,
and a soma-vessel that is decorated with lotus petals. Adinath Temple, Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh, India. 10th
c. b. Indo-malayan sculptors identified Śiva’s burning trident as a flaming lotus flower. Java, ca. 12th c. (National
Museum, Jakarta). c. Varuna mounts a vanquished dragon (makara or vrtra) as he displays his weapons of
choice: the ‘noose of Varuna’ and a handful lotus rhizomes. A vessel of soma is displayed in his
2004] MCDONALD: THE IDENTITY OF SOMA S159

Fig. 4. Artistic Renderings of Vedic Gods. a. Iconographic interpretations of Soma-Candra in India are
almost indistinguishable from those of Brahmā, the lotus-born Creator of the cosmos. With a soma-vessel in
hand, Soma’s golden body personifies the golden receptacle of a lotus flower. Orissa, India. 13th c. (British
Museum). b. Brahmanic artisans of Nepal portray Soma-Candra in the image of Brahmā in the Mahabharata.
Soma’s floral chariot is driven by a team of Vedic geese (hamsas). Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. 16th c. (Bakhtapur
Museum).

Asuras and yet everlasting life for the gods of
creation. In a similar vein, Soma himself serves
a dual, if not paradoxical, purpose in Vedic my-
thology, as he is both a serpent and a serpent-
slayer. These mythical characteristics recall that
manner in which Soma assumed the form of an
ancient serpent (sarpa or vrtra106) in order to
erect his pillar of the sun.107 In this context, he
is aptly described as an ‘Asura that finds the
light’.108 But in other hymns Soma is an invin-
cible serpent-slayer, or Vrtrahan,109 intent on
vanquishing broods of malevolent serpents that
imprison his golden shoots in the underworld of
rivers and streams110 (Lahiri 1984). In the latter
context, the creeping demons are described as
irreligious (ábrahman or ákarman) spirits and
incorrigible opponents of the heroic Devas (ád-
evayu; Hillebrandt 1990). Although many com-
mentators have been frustrated by these contrad-
ictive themes, the paradox is resolved by alter-
native Vedic verses that describe the vrtras as
creeping plants111 (vratati; Macdonell and Keith
1982; Fig. 1c, d).
This novel interpretation of Aryan dragons is
entirely consistent with visual interpretations of
these serpent-gods in the arts of India and South-

←
lower hand. Adinath Temple, Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh, India. 10th c. d. Sarasvatı̄, the riverine mother of
Soma in the Vedas, is conventionally depicted as a voluptuous lotus-nymph. Note that she presents a cluster of
lotus rhizomes and flowering shoot in her upper hand and a lotiformed soma-vessel in her lower hand. Pailu,
Rajasthan. 12th c. (National Museum, New Delhi).
S160 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL. 58

Fig. 5. Vedic Gods in the Arts of India. a. Sūrya drives his floral chariot with a team of seven horses. His
ascent to the heavens brings life to a pair of lotus flowers. Bihar, India. 12th c. (Victoria Albert Museum). b.
In keeping with Vedic mythology, Brahmanic communities of medieval India portrayed Indra as serpent-slaying
storm-god. His lotiformed bolt impales a three-headed serpent known as Viśvarūpa in Vedic mythology. Adinath
Temple, Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh, India. 10th c.

east Asia; the oldest known renderings are en-
countered among the oldest known Buddhist
sanctuaries of Sanci and Bharut (3rd–2nd c.
BCE). Here the bodies of dragons are invariably
depicted as lotus rhizome: i.e., with segmented
stems, paired stipules, localized root scars, and
erect flowering shoots (Bosch 1960; Coomaras-
wamy 1931). Variations on these early interpre-
tations of the mystical serpent are also encoun-
tered among abandoned Hindu and Buddhist
temples of post-classical origin in India (Camp-
bell 1982; Fig. 5), Indochina (Fig. 6a, b, 7, 8a),
and Indonesia (Bosch 1960; Fig. 4, 5, 30, 31).
A typical rendering of the dragon by the Khmer
portrays a multi-headed cobra that disgorges a
continual trail of lotus stems and flowers from
his mouth (Fig. 6b). Each hood of the dragon
displays a lotus medallion, presumably to imply
that a flower is born each time the immortal ser-
pent raises one of his heads.
In classical mythology, these mysterious ser-
pents were often identified with the ophidian as-
pect of Visnu, a Vedic god and close ally of
Soma during prehistoric times, who eventually
assumed Lordship over the Brahmanic pantheon
by the turn of the 5th century BCE. Like Vedic
Soma, Visnu was recognized as both a serpent
and serpent-slayer, as well as a pillar of the sun,
golden eye of the sun, cosmic charioteer, cosmic
archer, primordial source of the sacred lotus,
amrta, and so on. Hence one is inclined to as-
sume that Visnu was recognized as a reincar-
2004] MCDONALD: THE IDENTITY OF SOMA S161

Fig. 6. Symbolic and Metaphorical Attributes of Soma. a. Visnu’s ‘navel of immortality’ is often identified
as a flowering lotus stalk. His cosmic umbilicus supports Brahmā, Visnu, and Śiva: the gods of birth, existence
and death (respectively). Banteay Samrei, Cambodia. 12th c. b. Mythical serpents (nagas or vrtras) that decorate
the borders and portals of Khmer temples often disgorge a continuous procession of lotus shoots from their
mouths. Muang Lam, Thailand. 12th c. c. Garuda is portrayed in Nepal as lotus-born sun-god. His cosmic perch
is rooted in a soma vessel. Bakhtapur, Nepal. d. Garuda delivers a vessel of soma to the Devas after vanquishing
a pair of dragons. Note that the famous ‘bearer of oblations’ ascends to the heavens on a lotus flower and that
he wears a skirt that is made from lotus petals. Chusya Baha Temple, Kathmandu, Nepal. 17th c.
S162 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL. 58

Fig. 7. The Khmer envisage Indra as a vajra-wielding, serpent-slaying sun-god. Note that the serpent is a
lotus rhizome which is born from, and consumed by, the burning face of ‘Time’ (Kāla). Banteay Srei Temple,
Cambodia. 10th c.

nation of Soma. A large part of Indian mythol-
ogy pertains to the myriad reincarnations or ava-
taras (‘descents’: Panikkar 1977) of Visnu,
whose stories relate in one way or another to the
annual appearance and disappearance of a ‘lo-
tus-cycle’ (padma-kalpa). The most primordial
of Visnu’s incarnations is called the padma-ava-
tāra, or ‘lotus-descent’, in which the Lord of
creation appears on earth as a cosmic flower.
This vegetative incarnation is soon followed by
a series of different animal avatars, including a
fish, turtle, pig, lion, and man (Kriśna and
Rama), all of which reveal, in one way or an-
other, the truth of the Vedas and the nature of
the Creator’s immortalizing nectar.112 Following
each of these material incarnations, Visnu trans-
forms himself into a seven-headed serpent. This
creature is known as Śesa, ‘the Remainder’, to
identify this recurrent aspect as the ‘residue’ of
a former lotus-cycle. The ophidian form of Vis-
nu is born time and again from his aquatic abyss,
giving life to a host of lotiformed gods (i.e., his
scions) that enter and exit the cycles of life in
an everlasting ‘stream’ or ‘fluxion’ (samsāra) of
material permutations (i.e., avataras). While all
of these creatures and gods may come and go
within the realms of materiality, the Cosmic
Soul (Brahman or Ātman) of the Universe re-
sides eternally in the lotus groves of paradise.
This cosmic image of creation is frequently
portrayed in the arts by surrounding the image
of a lotus flower with lotus rhizomes or inter-
linking dragons. An alternative interpretation
portrays Visnu as a cosmic man with a lotus
shoot emerging from his immortal navel (Coom-
araswamy 1931). In Burma (Thaw 1972) and
Cambodia (Fig. 6a) these three symbolic ele-
ments often convene to produce a trifurcating
lotus-tree of life, each branch of which sustains
a member of the Hindu trinity: namely Brahmā,
2004] MCDONALD: THE IDENTITY OF SOMA
Visnu, Śiva. These three gods represent the basic
stages of material existence—birth, existence,
and death (respectively)—and therefore exem-
plify the three sequential stages of a lotus-cycle.
Although this particular image is far removed
from Visnu’s original homeland, and was elab-
orated almost three-thousand years after Visnu’s
appearance among the Indo-Aryans, it remains
faithful to ancient Aryan imagery that relates to
Soma. For Soma, the original Father of the gods,
is also a pillar of solar light, golden and red
flower, cosmic dragon, immortal navel,113 pri-
mordial man,114 and Lord of Brahmins.115
Cambodia’s peculiar visualizations of Visnu
are based primarily on a Puranic myth entitled
the Padma-avatara, or ‘Lotus-incarnation’.116 In
this tale, Visnu separates the realms of earth and
skies with his pillared umbilicus, and then brings
life to the world by transforming his navel cord
into a cosmic lotus. As Visnu’s cosmic bud (or
egg) begins to awaken at the dawn of creation,
it reveals a four-headed, golden Brahmin within
its perianth, the ‘first-born’ creator of time and
living beings known as Brahmā. This golden
man is born with the belief that he is the Creator
of the cosmos, but then becomes confused when
he encounters Visnu residing at the opposite end
of his lotus stalk in the form of a serpent. After
a brief and heated argument, both gods recog-
nize that they are simply different aspects of the
same primeval ‘Soul’ (i.e., Ātman), a term that
originally applied to Soma in the Rg Veda.117
The tale of Brahmā’s discovery of his serpentine
self harkens back, of course, to Vedic mytholo-
gy, which identifies Soma as a primeval serpent,
the separator of the Earth from the Sky,118 the
first-born ‘Brahman of the Gods’,119 and a gold-
en-bodied flower that gives life to the Aryan
cosmos.
Mythical portrayals of Visnu in classical my-
thology as both a serpent and serpent-slayer are
also themes that clearly trace from Vedic peri-
ods. In the latter role, Visnu often assumes the
form of solar eagle known as Garuda, in which
guise he seizes the writhing bodies of aquatic
dragons to dispossess them of their immortaliz-
ing nectar. This classical avian figure is clearly
identical to the ‘fair-plumed’ (suparna) sun-bird
of Vedic mythology that once winged his way
across the Aryan skies120 in a search for soma,
namely Garutmat. And in like manner, he must
also be identical to Soma, since the sacred plant
of the Indo-Aryans was also likened to a fair-
S163
plumed121 plant, or indeed, a solar-bodied rap-
tor122 that extracted the nectar of the gods from
the bodies of aquatic dragons.123 Just as Vedic
Garutmat perched his flaming body upon a cos-
mic pillar to view the Aryan world with an all-
seeing, solar eye,124 Soma placed his golden eye
upon a golden pillar125 to peer across the four
quarters of the earth. Thus, Garutmat originally
represented a zoomorphic aspect of Soma,
whose flaming feathers are homologous with the
feather-like petals126 of Soma’s sun-like eyes
(Fig. 1a, b).
In classical and medieval mythology of India,
Garuda conserved his traditional roles as a ‘De-
stroyer of Serpents’ and ‘Stealer of Elixir’127
(Naganta and Amrtaharana, respectively; Dan-
ielou 1991, but he was better known during this
later period as an avian avatar128 or ‘vehicle’ (va-
hana) of Visnu. These mythic images are con-
sistent in every respect with iconographic inter-
pretations of the solar eagle throughout Asia,
which customarily associate the dragon-slaying
raptor with a pillared lotus stalk (Fig. 6c). In
Nepal, for example, Garuda’s floral perch is
rooted in an ‘over-flowing vessel’ (purna-kum-
bha) of elixir (Fig. 6c; the equivalent of Vedic
Soma’s ‘golden vessel’;129 Hillebrandt 1990),
presumably to identify the nectar of the gods
with the nectar of the lotus. It is also notable
that the quasi-personified raptor and his floral
podium are both guilded in gold, ostensibly to
imply the equivalency of the flower’s petals with
the bird’s ‘fair wings’. This same symbolic re-
lationship is observed in a narrative rendering of
the avian sun-god in the nearby temple of Chu-
sya Baha of Nepal, where the famous bearer of
oblations lifts off his lotus pillar with a soma
vessel (the Vedic kalaśa) in his hand (Fig. 6d)
and two writhing dragons beneath his feet. It is
noteworthy that this image pertains specifically
to a detailed account of Garuda’s life in the Ma-
habharata,130 but it holds just as true to prehis-
toric accounts of Garutmat’s flights over the
Punjab.
VEDIC GODS IN THE ARTS OF
CLASSICAL AND MEDIEVAL INDIA
As mentioned earlier, the gods of birth, exis-
tence, and death in classical mythology—Brah-
mā, Visnu, and Śiva—share control over the Ve-
dic pantheon by governing the timing of recur-
rent lotus cycles (padma-kalpa).131 ‘Lotus-born’
(Padma-yoni) Brahmā initiates each cycle of life
S164 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL. 58

Fig. 8. Extracting Soma in Myth and Ritual. a. Devas and Asuras churn for the elixir of immortality by
coiling the body of a serpent around a lotiformed mountain (Mount ‘Kalaśa’ or ‘Soma-vessel’). A vessel of
amrita is observed on the back of Visnu’s turtle incarnation (Kurma). Angkor, Cambodia. 12th c. (Guimet
Museum). b. The mouth of Rāhu disgorges soma into an ‘over-brimming vessel’ (purna-kumbha) of the Devas.
Note that the urn is fashioned in the image of a flower and that a lotus flower floats upon the elixir of immortality.
Dasavatara Temple, Deogarh, Madhya Pradesh, India. 6th c. c. Massive mortars and pestles are often placed
inside the inner sanctums of Hindu temples. The pestle is symbolic of Śiva’s immortal phallus and his creative
2004] MCDONALD: THE IDENTITY OF SOMA
by awakening his golden body from within a
cosmic flower (Fig. 6a, 8a); Visnu sustains each
lotus-cycle by supporting the floral womb of
Brahmā upon his pillared navel cord (Fig. 6a,
8a); and Śiva draws each lotus-cycle to a close
by annihilating Brahmā’s floral throne with the
burning energies of his self-consuming fires
(Fig. 2c, 3b), thereby setting the stage for an-
other round of creation. Accordingly, the Hindu
trinity embodies the three sequential stages of a
lotus growth cycle, or three aspects (tri-murti)
of a Universal Creator (Brahman or Ātman).
This same primordial soul, or ‘creative princi-
ple’, was originally recognized in Vedic verses
by the name of Viśvakarman (‘All-maker’),132
Hiranyagarbha (‘Golden-womb’),133 or Tad
Ekam (‘That One’).134 All of these titles refer to
the same self-created demiurge which produced
being (sat) from non-being (asat) in the form of
a ‘germ’, ‘navel’, ‘pillar’ or ‘sun’. As is now
apparent, all of these attributes and roles were
also shared by Vedic Soma, yet another name
for the ancient ‘Lord of Creation’.135
The rise of Visnu in the ranks of the Vedic
pantheon during the classical period did not por-
tend the obsolescence or disappearance of
Soma’s ancient associates. Although many new
and distinctive gods and goddesses appear on
the mythic scene, almost all of them descend
from Vedic gods and goddesses. Soma continues
to provide the Devas and Asuras with their year-
ly allotments of nectar in classical Indian my-
thology (Macdonell 1995; Mani 1975), and he
continues to fulfill this role by assuming the
mythic image of either a sun or moon (Sūrya or
Candra,136 respectively; Macdonell 1995; Hille-
brandt 1990). Indeed, iconographic portrayals of
Soma-Candra in Medieval India envisage the
god as a lotus-born Brahmin137 who carries a
vessel of elixir to the heavens (Fig. 4a). This
perspective compares closely with Nepalese in-
terpretations of the god (Fig. 4b), which envi-
sion the vegetative Moon-god as a lotus-chari-
oteer. We note that the god drives a team of
aquatic fowl (hamsas or ‘geese’), these being
recognized as avian avatars of Soma in the Rg
←
seed (soma), while the mortar is symbolic of his consort’s floral womb (yoni) of creation. The ‘churning’ of
these organs produces the elixir of immortality. Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh, India. 11th c. (National Museum,
New Delhi). d. Javanese Brahmins decorated their mortars and pestles with lotus flowers so as to equate the
immortalizing seed of Śiva with lotus nectar. Java, Indonesia. ca. 14th c. (National Museum, Jakarta).
S165
Veda.138 We also note that a pair of Devas have
released their cosmic arrows into a labyrinth of
lotus rhizome that surround the floral chariot,
ostensibly to liberate a host of lotus-throned De-
vas. While this particular rendering of Soma
seems to mirror the mythic image of Brahmā in
the Mahabharata (i.e., a lotus-born god that
drives a goose-drawn chariot),139 it also suggests
that Nepalese artisans were well aware of a close
symbolic relationship between Brahmā, Soma-
Candra, and the sacred lotus.
Anthropomorphic renderings of Soma on his
lunar chariot are almost indistinguishable from
contemporaneous portrayals of the sun-god
known as Sūrya, as both deities are distin-
guished by their floral chariots (i.e., as a podi-
um) and the conventional habit of upholding a
pair of lotus stalks (Fig. 4b, 5a). The vegetative
character of their celestial vehicles maintains
their ancient Aryan image, as the chariots of
Soma and Sūrya were originally described as
one-axled, three-hubbed wheels140 that served as
vessels for the nectar of immortality141 (i.e., ⫽
three concentric rings of petals, stamens and
ovoid receptacle; Fig. 1b, 2b). All of these sym-
bolic attributes are incorporated into a 12th cen-
tury rendering of Sūrya’s solar vehicle (Fig. 5a),
along with the standard team of seven horses.142
This same solar car was also commandeered by
Indra in Vedic mythology, suggesting that this
famous wielder of the bolt was also a sun-god.
Like Soma, Indra ascended into the heavens on
the chariot of Sūrya to shoot his ‘‘feathered
shafts’’143 (i.e., Soma’s arrows) into the mouths
of dark and surly serpents. This ancient mythic
image is portrayed by numerous renderings of
Indra in the medieval period of India, one of
which places a stylized lotus stalk in one hand
of the god and a three-pronged, floral bolt in the
other (Fig. 5b). We note that a three-headed
dragon (i.e., Vedic Viśvarūpa144) has been im-
paled by the god’s trident, thus affecting the re-
lease of soma from the underworld. This clas-
sical Indian image compares closely with Cam-
bodian interpretations of Indra, which similarly
hold true to ancient Vedic concepts of the fa-
S166 ECONOMIC BOTANY
mous storm-god. In one classic Khmer design,
Indra assumes a meditative ‘lotus-position’ on a
‘lion-faced’ (simha-mukha; or ‘sun-faced’, sūr-
ya-mukha) god of ‘Time’ (Kāla; Fig. 7). The
face of the lion is symbolic of the sun, yet one
also observes that the burning face represents
the head of a lotus-bodied serpent. As Indra rais-
es his bolt in victory, two immortal serpents dis-
tend their lotus-navelled bodies in compliance to
his will, and release the nectar-bearing flowers
from the underworld. Indra’s flaming trident
emerges from each of the serpent’s dangling
flowers.
The Rg Veda identifies yet another important
Aryan divinity with the sun and Soma, namely
Agni, the god of ‘Fire’ (Fig. 3a). This god’s
mythic form and functions are essentially iden-
tical to those of Soma (Brough 1971; Doniger
1981; Keith 1989; Macdonell 1995), for he too
is a cosmic archer,145 golden pillar,146 brilliant
sun,147 golden Brahmin,148 ‘bearer of obla-
tions’,149 and ‘child of the waters’.150 And not
unlike his vegetative ally, Agni is a vegetative
‘creeper’ that hides within watery substrates151
of his ancient mother, the Earth (i.e., Bhu).152
When time is nigh for his body to shine with
the brilliance of the sun, he arises into the heav-
ens with sharpened, flaming shafts,153 and then
kindles himself in the guise of a golden154 and
ruddy scion.155 Agni is god paradox, as he lives
part of his life as an ‘aquatic embryo’ (apām
garbha156) and another part as a burning sun.157
None of these characteristics can distinguish
him, however, from Soma, as Agni is Soma.158
Since Vedic verses also assert that Agni hides
himself in lotus plants along riverbanks,159 we
can only deduce that Soma and Agni represent
deified aspects of this celebrated plant.
Like Soma, Agni is also described in terms of
a golden sage (rsi) or Brahmin160 that basks in
the golden aura of his spiritual fires (tapas).161
This archaic image is consistent with icono-
graphic impressions of Brahmā, all Buddhas, as
well as Agni himself (Fig. 3a). In the latter case,
we note that the ancient Aryan god of fire is
enveloped by flames that arise from his pyro-
genic shoulders; and like Indra, he wields a lo-
tiformed shaft in one hand and a vanquished
three-headed dragon in the other (i.e., Viśvarū-
pa,162 a Vedic victim of Agni and Indra). He also
displays a soma-vessel (kalaśa) that is decorated
on its outer face with lotus petals, ostensibly to
[VOL. 58
signify his possession of lotus nectar (i.e.,
amrta).
Medieval conceptions of Agni in the plastic
arts are indistinguishable from those of Śiva dur-
ing the same time period (Fig. 3b), and therefore
suggest that Śiva is a derivative form of Agni-
Soma. This deduction is confirmed by the fact
that Śiva often goes by the name of Rudra in
classical Hindu mythology, and that Rudra was
originally recognized as an ally of Soma and
Agni in the Rg Veda.163 In fact, Rudra was spe-
cifically identified as a destructive aspect of
Soma himself (Rudra-Soma164). Derived myths
of classical origin usually identify Śiva-Rudra as
either an agent or alter-ego of Visnu and Brah-
mā, in which role he is prone to destroy Asuras
with his blazing, lotiformed trident (Fig. 2c, 3b).
Since Śiva represents the destructive aspect of
Visnu, it is not surprising that this god reveals
himself in a number of animal forms, the most
prominent of which is a lotus-faced serpent.165
In this guise, Śiva occasionally assumes the ti-
tles of various Vedic dragons, such as Viśvaru-
pa, Sarpa, Bala, and Aja-ekapad.166 But Śiva-
Rudra also maintains his age-old role as a drag-
on-slayer,167 in which context he is openly iden-
tified as an aspect of Soma, Agni, Śarva, and
Varuna.168
Of the latter gods, Vedic Varuna is particular-
ly worthy of note, as he was originally identified
as an Asuran169 (as opposed to Devic) ally of
Rudra.170 Varuna is a riverine spirit that was
lauded for his assistance to Rudra and yet other
Devas for supporting Soma’s pillar of truth171 in
the midst of rivers.172 Since Varuna sustained a
vegetative summit (vanasya stupam)173 that
opened a pathway to the Sun,174 it comes as little
surprise that this famous ‘Lord of Waters’
(Āpampati) was also identified in Vedic verses
as an aspect of Soma.175 Nevertheless, Varuna
often distinguishes himself as a unique and dis-
tinctive spirit by his particular choice of weap-
ons—the paśa, or ‘noose’176—which he uses to
bind serpent-demons in the deep as he raises
Soma’s pillar of truth. In classical and medieval
iconography, Varuna conventionally mounts the
back of an aquatic dragon (makara) to indicate
his prowess over the serpent-clans (Fig. 3c). He
often displays a ropy ‘noose’ in one hand and a
cluster of lotus rhizomes in the other, so as to
imply the symbolic equivalency of these weap-
ons of divine warfare. In this specimen, he also
2004] MCDONALD: THE IDENTITY OF SOMA
possesses a soma-vessel, indicating his victory
over the dragons.
Varuna is not the only divinity that mounts
the back of aquatic dragons, as this station is
also shared by a variety of Brahmanic river-god-
desses, such as Sarasvatı̄ (Fig. 3d), Ganga (Gan-
ges), and Yamuna (Jumna). All of these rivers
were worshipped in Vedic mythology,177 but
only Sarasvatı̄ appears distinctly as a goddess
during prehistoric times. She was indirectly rec-
ognized as a mother-figure of Vedic Soma,178
Agni,179 and Indra,180 in the sense that she nur-
tured their divine ‘germs’ (garbha)181 in her wa-
ters. Other verses imply that she bestowed im-
mortality on these golden heroes, as her breasts
flowed with the nectar of immortality.182 More-
over, she bestowed ecstasy on Aryans that prac-
ticed the soma sacrifice on her hallowed banks.
Classical and medieval myths generally identify
this goddess as the consort of Brahmā and the
mother of the Vedas (Washburn 1986), neither
of which roles is out of keeping with her Vedic
persona. Although most iconographic impres-
sions of Sarasvatı̄ date from the medieval period
of Indian history, these depictions invariably
portray her with Vedic attributes. A 12th century
rendering of the goddess in western India inten-
tionally equates the contents of her voluptuous
breasts with the nectariferous contents of her sa-
cred flowers (Fig. 3d). And like Varuna during
this same time period (Fig. 3c), she holds a clus-
ter of budding lotus rhizomes in one of her
hands and tablets of the Vedas in another. Her
soma-vessel is decorated on its outer surface
with lotus petals to emphasize a connection be-
tween the cosmic flower and immortalizing nec-
tar. All the while, her sumptuous body is illu-
minated by the golden light of a full-blown lotus
flower.
THE SOMA SACRIFICE IN MYTH
With the foregoing, it is increasingly apparent
that most members of the Vedic pantheon were
conceived in the Aryan imagination as deified
and/or personified aspects of the sacred lotus.
Yet these same gods and goddesses were also
perceived as distinctive agents that sacrificed the
plant (their own identity) on their own behalf.
This recurrent theme is embodied in the char-
acter of Soma himself, as he is explicitly iden-
tified as both the sacrifice and the sacrificer.183
This pervasive paradox in Brahmanic mythology
is at the root of all that is considered mystical
S167
in eastern religion, and is best revealed in tales
that account for the sacrifice of soma. This gen-
eral theme forms the basis of a popular tale in
the Puranas entitled the ‘Churning for Nectar’
(Amrta-manthana),184 and describes the peculiar
manner in which the Devas and Asuras once co-
ordinated their oppositional efforts to achieve
immortality (amrta). It is not by coincidence that
the title of this myth borrows the archaic Vedic
term for ‘churning’ (manthā; Macdonell and
Keith 1982), which relates to the use of mortars
and pestles by Aryan priests to extract the psy-
chotropic saps of soma’s milky stalks.185 In a
mythical context, the gods accomplish this feat
by wrapping the body of a cosmic dragon (Va-
suki by name, a material manifestation of Vis-
nu186) around a lotiformed mountain (i.e.,
Soma187) that has arisen from the navel of Vis-
nu.188 They then churn their Creator’s ‘milky
ocean’ for ambrosia by tugging at opposite ends
of the serpent’s body.
Per the usual, the gods must initially over-
come a series of obstacles, but not without the
indispensable assistance of their Creator. In this
case, the massive mountain proves much too
large and unwieldy for the Devas and Asuras to
manage by themselves. Hence Visnu transforms
himself into a turtle (kurma) to support the floral
mountain upon his carapace, and then into a cos-
mic man (purusa) so as to steady the mountain’s
stalk with an outstretched arm. Once the mysti-
cal mountain has been stabilized, the gods of the
earth and sky proceed to churn the milky ocean
for a generous outpouring of Visnu’s immortal-
izing nectars. As the nectar begins to flow, a
banquet is prepared for the benefit of the Devas.
The first gods to arrive are the Sun (Sūrya) and
Moon (Candra), soon followed by Indra, Garu-
da, and the rest of Devas. When Padma (‘Lotus-
lady’), the consort and feminine alter-ego of Vis-
nu, arrives, along with a host of dancing lotus-
nymphs (i.e., apsarases, or ‘Essence of the wa-
ters’; Danielou 1991), all the gods begin to
rejoice in song and dance. While a copious out-
pouring of elixir fills their goblets, they raise
their chalices and pay obeisance to Visnu, Brah-
mā, and Śiva for the gift of immortal life.
Visual interpretations of this colorful tale
among the famous ruins of Cambodia make
clear that the immortalizing nectar of the gods
is a byproduct of Visnu’s lotiformed mountain
(Fig. 8a). As the serpent’s massive body is
grasped from opposite ends by teams of Devas
S168 ECONOMIC BOTANY
and Asuras, Brahmā assumes his standard ‘lotus
position’ on top the golden mountain. The Sun
and Moon ascend to heavens, and dancing
troops of apsarases fill the skies to welcome the
rest of the Devic host. All of these gods can be
traced, of course, from prehistoric hymns, in-
cluding the famous apsarases, or ‘lotus-
nymphs’, hosts of which formerly danced with
Soma in the lotus groves of the Punjab.189 And
we can be sure that the gods have convened to
drink lotus nectar, as a large vessel is observed
at the base of the churning lotus stalk.
The long and complicated myth of the ‘Great
Churning’ includes a number of intriguing sub-
plots and allegorical themes that relate in various
ways to the soma sacrifice. One of these epi-
sodes describes how an underworld figure by the
name of Rāhu (‘Seizer’) succeeds in dispossess-
ing the Devas of their nectar by disguising him-
self as the sun. With his true identity concealed,
Rāhu is able to enter into the company of the
sky-gods and swallow a planetary body that
serves as a vessel for the nectar of the gods: the
Moon (Candra). When the Devas are deprived
once again of immortal life, Visnu is called upon
for assistance. In this instance, the Creator of the
cosmos appears on the scene with golden, blaz-
ing disk (cakra) in hand, and decapitates the
gluttonous fiend with his invincible weapon.
This act results in a copious outpouring of soma
from Rāhu’s sun-like head, and the subsequent
rejuvenation of the Devas. While many mythol-
ogists have interpreted this fabulous tale as a
colorful description of a lunar eclipse, such an
explanation fails to account for the important
role of nectar in the story. Nor does this expla-
nation take into consideration that the sun and
moon traditionally served as soma-vessels in Ve-
dic mythology, which clearly has little to do
with movements of planetary orbs. Indeed, ren-
derings of this mythic theme in the arts of India
rarely focus on planetary bodies, but mainly on
lotus flowers and nectar. In central India, for ex-
ample, Rāhu’s sun-like face surrenders a gener-
ous spout of nectar into an ‘over-brimming ves-
sel’ (purna-kumbha), while a disembodied lotus
flower is observed floating upon an overflow of
nectar (Fig. 8b). Thus, it would seem that Rāhu’s
consumption of the moon is symbolic of lotus
anthesis: the radiate configuration of golden ray-
like stamens engulfing a golden moon-shaped
seed receptacle (Fig. 1b).
[VOL. 58
THE SOMA SACRIFICE IN RITUAL
Historical accounts of the soma sacrifice by
early Brahmanic communities are not as obscure
and mysterious as mythical accounts of the pro-
cess. Vedic songs and liturgical works of the
Brahmanas make clear that Aryan priests used
stone mortars, pestles, and pressing boards190 to
extract the inebriating saps of soma stalks (Hil-
lebrandt 1990, I). There are also indications that
crude extracts were filtered with wool and pos-
sibly given a heat treatment, as numerous litur-
gies refer to the use of fire altars and cauldrons
during the process.191 Soma’s juices were then
mixed with milk, yogurt, and/or roasted cere-
als192 in specialized vessels (kalaśas or dron-
as)193 and drunk soon thereafter. Judging from
archeological records of India and Southeast
Asia, these procedures were employed by Brah-
manic and Buddhist communities for thousands
of years, as massive mortars and pestles have
been discovered among the ancient temples of
these religious sects from the Punjab to Indo-
Malaya (Fig. 8c, d). These stone implements
currently serve as altars for modern Brahmanic
and Hindu communities, but they are much too
large to have been used for decorative purposes
alone. Some of them are more than 3 m wide
and weigh in excess of several tons. The foun-
dations of these sacrificial altars are normally
cubical, flat-topped platforms, one side of which
presents an elongated spout. The altar’s base is
traditionally referred to as the yoni, a term which
connotes the sacrificial ‘locus’, ‘womb’, or
‘dwelling place’ of Soma194 in Vedic songs (Pan-
ikkar 1977). A cavity is hollowed out of the
middle of the yoni, into which is fitted a cylin-
drical or eight-angled pestle (Fig. 8c). The pestle
is called a linga, or ‘phallus’, and, as earlier
mentioned, is associated with the virile member
of various Brahmanic gods, usually the phallus
of Śiva. In classical mythology, the linga con-
tains a ‘semen’ or retas of cosmic significance,
namely soma;195 hence the symbolic joining of
the linga and yoni, in both a mythical and ritu-
alistic context, results in the generation of nectar
(amrta).
Most lingas and yonis that are observed in
modern museums and ancient temple sites were
elaborated after the turn of the 4th century, but
they all match closely in general form with early
descriptions of Aryan altars during the turn of
the 8th century BCE. The Satapatha Brahmana
2004] MCDONALD: THE IDENTITY OF SOMA
states explicitly, for example, that the yoni was
a four-cornered, stone altar, and that it served as
a mortar during the soma sacrifice.196 Into this
mortar was inserted a rounded pestle that was
called the śiśna197 (phallus), a Sanskrit term that
is synonymous with linga. Various chapters of
this ancient text reveal that Aryan altars were
often decorated in the image of the sacrificial
victim,198 which implies that they were fashioned
in the image of either a flower or stalk. Indeed,
to the present day, there is only one plant that
is associated with these ubiquitous altars, and
that is the eastern lotus (Fig. 8c, d). The yoni is
conventionally surrounded by lotus petals, into
which is fitted a rounded pestle, a symbolic rep-
resentation of a lotus seed receptacle. Most art
historians identify the lower portion of the sac-
rificial altar as a symbol of the Earth, or one of
several archetypal earth-goddesses in Hindu my-
thology, such as Padma (‘Lotus-lady’), the con-
sort of Visnu, Sarasvatı̄, the lotus-born consort
of Brahmā, or Kamalā (‘Lotus-girl’), the consort
of Siva. All of these goddesses were identified
directly or indirectly as the cosmic womb of the
universe, or the womb of a soma sacrifice. Since
the yoni was often described in Vedic terms as
the receptacle of Soma’s cosmic seed,199 or as
the birthplace of the sacrificial god,200 one may
identify the mortar as the material and symbolic
source of the ‘essence’ of creation. The churning
of the phallus and womb produced the nectar of
the goddess and seed of the phallus.
So far as we know, lingas and yonis are no
longer employed in public arenas to press out
the saps of flowering lotus shoots. Nevertheless,
contemporary communities of Brahmanic and
Buddhist priests still make use of these altars in
a manner that clearly traces from the prehistoric
past. Lingas and yonis are presently anointed
with milk and/or red-pigmented liquids during
specified days of the year, and usually in the
context of their being washed with the nectar (or
seed) of the gods. Such procedures are outlined
in detail in the Satapatha Brahmana,201 and were
evidently practiced by Brahmanic communities
during the 11th century (Fig. 8c). It is still dif-
ficult to say, of course, just when and why the
practice of the soma sacrifice was abandoned in
the not so distant past (at least in public arenas),
but the sheer size and frequent occurrence of
lingas and yonis from northern India to South-
east Asia leave little reason to doubt that these
S169
ancient altars probably served as mortars and
pestles during civilized periods of Asian history.
CONCLUSIONS
A close examination of the mythic and artistic
records of India and Southeast Asia indicates
that the famous inebriant of the ancient Aryans
was the eastern lotus, Nelumbo nucifera. Vedic
epithets, metaphors, and myths that describe the
physical and behavioral characteristics of
soma—as a sun, serpent, golden eagle, arrow,
lightning bolt, cloud, phallic pillar, womb, char-
iot, and immortal navel—relate individually or
as a whole to the eastern lotus. Since most Hin-
du and Buddhist gods and goddesses trace their
origins from the Vedas (or at least share a ped-
igree of Vedic origin), and have always shared
close symbolic associations with Nelumbo, there
is reason to believe the divine status of this sym-
bolic plant derives from India’s prehistoric past.
This hypothesis will require confirmation by ad-
ditional chemical and pharmacological analyses,
preferably based on a broad sampling of wild
and domesticated lotus populations that range
from the northern shores of the Caspian Sea to
the Pacific Ocean. Since many populations of
this plant species exist as domesticated cultivars
for the production of edible seeds, starchy rhi-
zomes, ornamental qualities, and presumably,
pharmacological properties, we are likely to en-
counter considerable chemical variation among
the races. If and when Nelumbo proves to pos-
sess psychoactive constituents that live up to the
reputation of Soma, our current perspectives on
the origin and development of eastern religions
will require a thorough re-examination. For the
eastern lotus has played an enduring role in the
development of religion, myth and the arts of
the ancient Orient, and was likely employed by
Brahmanic, Buddhist and Zoroastrian commu-
nities before and after the dawn of civilization
in Asia.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Drs. Beryl Simpson and Tom Wendt of the Plant Resources Center at
the University of Texas, Austin, provided critical reviews on a prelimi-
nary draft of the manuscript. Gwen Gage assisted in preparing plates for
the photographs (䉷 J.A. McDonald 1998). Early support of this study
was provided by the Harvard University Herbaria and Arnold Arboretum.
LITERATURE CITED
Bhawe, S. S. 1957. The Soma hymns of the Rg-Veda.
Vol. 1. Oriental Institute, Baroda.
Bhikku Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi. 1995. The
S170 ECONOMIC BOTANY
middle length discourses of the Buddha: A new
translation of the Majjhima Nikaya. Wisdom Publ.,
Boston.
Bosch, F. D. K. 1960. The golden germ. Mouton &
Co., Gravenhage.
Brough, J. 1971. Soma and Amanita muscaria. Bul-
letin of Oriental and African Studies 34(2):331–
362, University of London.
Campbell, J. 1982. The mythic image. Princeton Uni-
versity Press, Princeton, NJ.
Coomaraswamy, A. 1928. Yaksas. Part I. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections, no. 2926. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
. 1931. Yaksas. Part II. Smithsonian Miscella-
neous Collections, no. 3059. Smithsonian Institu-
tion, Washington, D.C.
. 1979. Elements of Buddhist Iconography.
Munshiram Manoharlal Publ. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
(1st ed. 1935, Cambridge, MA).
Danielou, A. 1991. The myths and gods of India. Inner
Traditions International Inc., Rochester, VT.
Deshpande, N. A. 1988–1991. Padma Purana in An-
cient Indian tradition and mythology (Vols. 39–47).
Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.
Diaz, J. L. 1975. Etnofarmacologı́a de plantas alucin-
ógenas Latinoamericanas (Curanderos Cientı́ficos
CEMEF 4), Centro de Estudios en Farmadepen-
dencia, Mexico D.F.
Doniger O’Flaherty, W. 1967. The post-vedic history
of the soma plant. In G. Wasson, ed., Soma, divine
mushroom of immortality. Harcourt Brace Jova-
novich, Inc., Italy.
. 1981. The Rig Veda. Penguin Books Ltd.,
New York.
Edgerton, F. 1972. The Bhagavad Gita. Harvard Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Eggeling, J. 1978. Satapatha-Brāhmana. In Sacred
Books of the East. Vols. 12, 26, 41, 43, 44. Motilal
Banarsidass, Delhi. (1st eds. 1880–1885, Oxford.)
Emboden, W. A. 1972. Narcotic plants. The Mac-
Millan Co., New York.
. 1981. Transcultural use of narcotic water lilies
in ancient Egyptian and Mayan drug ritual. Journal
of Ethnopharmacology 3:39–83.
Falk, H. 1989. Soma I and II. Bull. School of Oriental
and African Studies 52:77–90.
Flattery, D. S., and M. Schwartz, 1989. Haoma and
harmaline. University of California Press, Berke-
ley, CA.
Foucher, A. 1994. The beginnings of Buddhist art. L.
A. Thomas and F. W. Thomas, trans. Asian Edu-
cational Services, New Delhi. (1st ed., 1917).
Furst, P. T. 1972. The flesh of the gods. Praeger Publ.,
New York and Washington.
Ganguli, K. M. 1990. Mahabharata. P. C. Roy, ed.,
Munshiram Manoharlal Publ. Ltd., New Delhi. (1st
ed. 1886).
Gibbs, R. D. 1974. Chemotaxonomy of flowering
[VOL. 58
plants. Vol. 1. McGill-Queen’s University Press,
Montreal.
Gonda, J. 1959. Epithets of the Rgveda. Mouton and
Co., The Hague.
. 1993. Aspects of early Visnuism. Motilal
Banarsidass, Delhi. (1st ed. 1954, Leiden).
Griffith, R. T. H. 1991. The hymns of the Rig Veda.
Motilal Banarsidass Publ. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. (1st ed.
1889).
. 1995. The Atharva Veda. 2 vols. Low Price
Publ., Delhi. (1st ed. 1916).
Harle, J. C. 1987. The art and architecture of the In-
dian subcontinent. Penguin Books, London.
Hillebrandt, A. 1990. Vedic mythology. S. Rajeswara
Sarma, trans. 2 vols., Motilal Banarsidass Publ.,
Delhi. (1st ed. 1927, Breslau).
Iyer, S. V. 1985. Varaha Purana. In Ancient Indian
tradition and mythology. Vols. 31–32. Motilal Ban-
arsidass, Delhi.
James, E. O. 1966. The tree of life. E. J. Brill, Leiden.
Johnston, E. H. 1992. Buddhacarita. Motilal Banar-
sidass, Delhi. (1st ed. 1936, Lahore).
Keith, A. B. 1967. Taittirı̄ya Sanhita. Harvard Oriental
Series. Vols. 18, 19. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.
(1st ed. 1914).
. 1989. The religion and philosophy of the Veda
and Upanishads. 2 vols. Motilal Banarsidass Publ.,
Delhi. (1st ed. 1925, Cambridge, MA).
Lahiri, A. K. 1984. Vedic Vrtra. Motilal Banarsidass,
Delhi.
Lee, S. 1994. A history of Far Eastern art. 5th ed.
Harry N. Abrams Inc., New York.
McDonald, J. A. 2002. Botanical determination of the
Middle Eastern tree of life. Economic Botany
56(2):113–129.
Macdonell, A. A. 1995. Vedic mythology. Motilal
Banarsidass Publ. Pvt. Ltd. Delhi. (1st ed. 1898).
, and A. B. Keith. 1982. Vedic index of names
and subjects. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi. (1st ed.
1912, London).
McKenna, T. 1992. Foods of the gods. Bantam
Books, New York.
Mahdihassan, S. 1981. The tradition of alchemy in
India. American Journal of Chinese Medicine 9:
23–33.
Malamoud, C. 1991. Soma as sacrificial substance
and divine figure in the Vedic mythology of Ex-
change. G. Honigsblum, trans. Pages 803–805 in
Y. Bonnefoy and Doniger, comps., Mythologies,
vol. 2. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Mani, V. 1975. Puranic encyclopaedia. 5th ed., Mo-
tilal Banarsidass, Delhi.
Nyberg, H. 1995. The problem of the Aryans and the
Soma: The botanical evidence. Pages 382–406 in
G. Erdosy, ed., The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South
Asia. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Oldenberg, H. 1993. The religion of the Veda. S. B.
2004] MCDONALD: THE IDENTITY OF SOMA S171

Shrotri, transl. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., Delhi. ENDNOTES

(1st ed. 1894).
RV ⫽ Rg Veda (Griffith 1991); SB ⫽ Satapatha Brah-
Panikkar, R. 1977. The Vedic experience, Mantra-
mana (Eggeling 1978); AV ⫽ Atharva Veda (Griffith
manjari. University of California Press, Berkeley.
1995); TaiS ⫽ Taittirı̄ya Sanhita (Keith 1967); MhB
Parpola, A. 1995. The problem of the Aryans and the
(Ganguli 1990); BhG Bhagavad Gita (Edgerton 1972)
Soma: Textual-linguistic and archeological evi-
dence. Pages 351–379 in G. Erdosy, ed., The Indo- 1 RV IX.7.1; 35.6; 42.5; 48.4; 46.24
Aryans of ancient South Asia. Walter de Gruyter, 2 RV VII.99.5; VIII.85.9; X.138.3; X.170.2; AV
Berlin. IV.10.5
Radhakrishnan, S. 1992. The principle Upanisads. 3 RV IX. 85.5; 61.17; 113.5
Humanities Press Intl. Inc., Atlantic Highlands, 4 RV X.90.16; AV III.8.1–3; 9.10–13; V.28.1–6;
New Jersey. (1st ed. 1953). VI.61; SB I.1.1.13; III.2.2.4; XI.1.1.1
Rockhill, W. W. 1884. The life of the Buddha (Bkah- 5 RV IX.96.7–8; IX.42.4
Hgyur and Bstan-Hgyur). Kegan Paul, Trench, 6 RV IX.33.5; IX.74.3; IX.94.41
Trubner & Co., London. 7 RV IX.106.8
Shamma, M. 1972. The isoquinoline alkaloids. Aca- 8 RV VIII.48.3
9 RV IX.51.5
demic Press, New York.
10 RV IX.21.2
, and J. L. Moniot. 1978. Isoquinoline alka-
11 RV IX.62.4
loids research. Plenum Press, New York.
12 RV IX.32.6
Shastri, J. L. 1970. Śiva Purana. In Ancient Indian
13 RV IX.9.9
tradition and mythology. Vols. 1–4. Motilal Ban-
14 RV IX.4.1–10 (Panikkar 1977, p. 804)
arsidass, Delhi.
15 RV 8.48.3
. 1973. Linga Purana. In Ancient Indian tradi-
16 RV IX.9.9; SB IX.4.4.8
tion and mythology. Vols. 5–6. Motilal Banarsi-
17 RV VIII.48.3
dass, Delhi.
18 Chandogya Upanisad V.2.4–8 (Radhakrishnan 1992)
. 1978–1980. Garuda Purana. In Ancient Indian
19 Brhadāranyaka Upanisad III.5.1; Chandogya Upan-
tradition and mythology. Vols. 12–14. Motilal Ban-
arsidass, Delhi. isad VIII.2.5 (Radhakrishnan 1992)
20 SB II.6.1.19–20; Svetāśvatara Upanisad VI.22;
Snodgrass, A. 1985. The symbolism of the Stupa. Mo-
tilal Banarsidass Publ., Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. Brhadāranyaka Upanisad III.2.12–13 (Radhakrishnan
Spess, D. L. 2000. Soma the divine hallucinogen. Park 1992)
21 RV IX.2.5; IX.73.7; IX.87.2
Street Press, Rochester, VT.
22 RV I.34.2; IV.13.5; IX.74.2; AV X.8.2–6
Tagare, G. V. 1976–1978. Bhagavata Purana. In An- 23
cient Indian tradition and mythology. Vols. 7–11. RV II.14.2; II.39.1; V.78.6–7; AV XII.1.24–29
24 RV IX.7.1; IX.35.6; IX.66.24
Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi. 25
. 1981–1982. Kurma Purana. In Ancient Indian RV IV.24.9; IV.58.5; AV X.7.41
26 AV X.7.41
tradition and mythology. Vols. 20–21. Motilal Ban- 27 RV I.179.4; I.32.8; VIII.1.33
arsidass, Delhi. 28 RV IX.50.1, IX.69.1; X.42.8; X.89.5
. 1987–1988. Vayu Purana. In Ancient Indian 29 RV X.89.5
tradition and mythology. Vols. 37–38. Motilal Ban- 30 RV IX.50.1
arsidass, Delhi. 31 RV IX.76.3; IX.86.44–46
Thaw, A. 1972. Historical sites in Burma. Sarpay 32 SB III.4.3.13; III.9.4.2; IV.1.4.8; IV.4.3.4
Beikman Press, Rangoon. 33 SB III.3.9.4; III.4.3.13; III.9.4.2; IV.1.4.8; IV.4.3.4:
Washburn, H. 1986. Epic mythology. Motilal Ban- TaiS VI.4.7
arsidass, Delhi. (1st ed., 1915, Strassburg). 34 RV VIII.40.6
Wasson, G. 1967. Soma, divine mushroom of immor- 35 SB XIII.4.3.9
tality. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Italy. 36 RV X.68.9
Wilson, H. H. 1980. Visnu Purana. Nag Publishers, 37 SB VII.4.2.14–15
Delhi. 38 RV III.48.1; VIII.32.28; X.94.8
Witzel, M. 1995. Early Indian history: Linguistic and 39 RV IX.61.10
textual parameters. Pages 351–379 in G. Erdosy, 40 RV VIII.32.28; VIII.33.4
ed., The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia. Wal- 41 RV IX.7.6; IX.8.6; IX.9.5
ter de Gruyter, Berlin. 42 RV IX.72.1; IX.111.1
Wujastik, D. 1998. The roots of Ayurveda. Penguin 43 RV IX.54.2–3
Books, Delhi. 44 RV IX.93.1
Zaehner, R. C. 1961. The dawn and twilight of Zo- 45 RV IX.54.3
roastrianism. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. 46 RV IX.2.6; IX.18.1; IX.54.2; IX.84.2
S172 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL. 58

47 RV IX.76.4; IX.9; IX.10.8–9; IX.97.46 98 RV IX.111.3; IX.72.7; X.144.2; AV I.13

48 RV I.135.3; IX.5; IX.15.5; IX.86.32; 99 RV IV.22.2
49 RV II.13.2; VIII.1.7, IX.6.6; IX.12.7; IX.54.1; TaiS 100 RV IX.47.3; IX.72.7
I.5.5; I.5.10 101 RV IX.86.3
50 RV V.43.4; IX.46.1; IX.71.4 102 RV IX.83.5
51 RV VII.96.2; IX.67.32; X.30.12 103 RV IX.74.4; IX.89.1; V I.134.6; TaiS II.5.2.6
52 RV I.23.18–20; IX.12.3; AV XX.41.2; SB V.2.2.5 104 AV XII.3.58–59
53 RV VIII.80.1 105 AV X.7
54 RV IX.54.2; IX.85.10 106 RV IX.86.44–46; SB III.4.3.13; III.9.4.2; IV.1.4.8;
55 RV I.84.14; VIII.6.38–39; IX.63.22; IX.113.1 IV.4.3.4
56 RV IX.97.41 107 RV IX.86.44
57 RV IX.86.36; X.13.5; IV.28.1 108 RV X.56.6
58 RV IX.15.5 109 RV I.32.11; IV.18.8; VI.47.21; X.113.6
59 AV XIX.44.5–6 110 RV II.11.9; III.32.11; IV.17.7; V.30.6
60 RV I.91.1; AV XIX.30.5 111 RV VIII.40.6
61 RV VIII.85.13–15 112 BhG X.18; XII.20
62 RV I.112.12; V.53.9; X.75.6 113 RV IX.10.8, IX.24.4
63 RV VII.33.11; VIII.1.33; AV IV.34.5 114 RV X.90.6–9; AV XIX.6.4
64 Chandogya Upanisad III.1.1–4, III.5.1, VIII.1.2; 115 RV IX.83.1
Kaivalya Upanisad V.6 116 Linga Purana I.20 (Shastri 1973)
65 Brhadāranyaka Upanisad II.3.6 Chandogya Upan- 117 RV IX.2.10
isad III.5.1 (Radhakrishnan 1992) 118 RV IX.70.2; 95.5
66 MhB I.84,100; Garuda Purana III.2.59–60, (Shas- 119 RV IX.96.5,10
tri 1978–1980), etc. 120 RV IV.26.4
67 BhG XV.13; MhB I.25; XIII.149.7003 121 RV IX.48.3
68 RV I.154.5 122 RV IX.38.4; IX.66.19; IX.71.6
69 SB V.5.5.1–6 123 RV 1.164.46–47
70 MhB XIII.149.7003 124 RV IX.71.9; RV IX.112.2
71 BhG IX.17; X.22; XV.15; Subāla Upanisad VI.1 125 RV IX.9.4; IX.60.1–2
(Radhadrishnan 1992) 126 RV IX.48.3, 71.9
72 BhG IX.16; MhB I.25; XIII.149.6962 127 BhG X.30; Varaha Purana I.125.31 (Iver 1985)
73 BhG IX.20 128 BhG X.30; Varaha Purana I.125.31 (Iver 1985);
74 Histories IV.113; VII.9,64 Padma Purana I.39.124–125 (Deshpande 1988–
75 Buddhacarita II.37 (Johnston 1992) 1991)
76 Buddhacarita I.61 (Johnston 1992); Bkah-Hgyur II 129 RV IX.75.3
(Rockhill, 1884: 17) 130 MhB I.16–34; Padma Purana II.47.41–173 (Desh-
77 RV I.34.11; III.6.9; VIII.28.1; IX.92.4 pande 1988–1991)
78 Bkah-Hgyur II, Rockhill 1884:17; Saddharma Pun- 131 Linga Purana I.20 (Shastri 1973)
darika VII.31 132 RV X.81; X.82
79 MhB XIII.14 (Ganguli 1990, 10:57) 133 RV X.7.28, 40–41; X.121
80 RV III.31.10; IX.74.1 134 RV X.129
81 Kurma Purana I.26.1–109 (Tagare 1981) 135 RV IX.96.5,10; IX.97.40
82 AV XII.3.58–59 136 RV X.55.5; X.68.10, AV X.7.2,32; XIX.19.4, SB
83 RV VIII.116.11; X.48.9 IX.4.1.7
84 RV VIII.66.11 137 RV IX.96.5–6
85 RV VIII.7.22 138 RV V.47.3; IX.112.2; X.144.5
86 RV V.31.4 139 Mhb III.189 (Ganguli 1990, III:566)
87 RV III.48.1; VIII.32.28; IX.17.5; X.94.8 140 RV I.164.2
88 RV VI.72; IX.63.9 141 RV IX.89.4
89 RV IV.19.3; X.99.6 142 RV V.45.9; VI.44.24
90 RV IX.38.1, 67.17 143 RV VI.46.11,14
91 RV I.164.14 144 RV X.8.9; SB I.6.3.1
92 RV IX.94.3 145 RV I.70.6; II.66.4; II.148.4; IV.4.1
93 RV IX.84.3 146 RV X.5.6
94 RV II.11.9; III.32.11; V.30.6; V.32.2 147 RV IV.3.5; IV.8.5; IV.15.19
95 RV IX.17.1 148 RV I.105.14
96 RV VI.47.27; VIII.89.9 149 RV III.9.6; V.9.1
97 RV III.44.4–5; IX.72.7; IX.77.1; X.144.2 150 RV I.143.1; III.1.13; III.9.1; VIII.63.9
2004] MCDONALD: THE IDENTITY OF SOMA S173

151 RV I.59.1; X.45.4 178 RV IX.5.8; IX.67.32; X.17.7–10

152 179 RV III.23.4; VIII.38.10
RV X.79.3; I.145.4–5
153 180 RV VIII.21.17–18; VIII.38.10
RV I.66.4; V.19.5
154 181 RV II.1.14; III.1.13; III.1.13; III.54.13; IX.68.5;
AV X.8.3–6
155 RV IV.15.6; AV X.8.3–6 X.184.2; AV V.25.3–7
156 182 RV VII.91.5–6; AV XX.123.5
RV I.70.3; III.1.12–15; III.5.3
157 183 AV VII.5 (Panikkar 1977: 357)
RV II.2.8; VII.10.1
158 184 Bhagavata Purana VIII.8.1–9.22 (Tagare 1976–
RV I.93
159 RV VIII.1.33; TaiS IV.2.8 1978)
160 185 RV I.28.4; Chandogya Upanisad VI.6.1 (Radha-
RV I.36.3; III.21.3; V.4.3
161 RV X.154.2 krishnan 1992)
186 BhG X.28
162 RV X.8.8
187 Varaha Purana 35 (Iver 1985)
163 RV VI.74.3 188 MhB VI.7; Vayu Purana 34.37–46 (Tagare 1987–
164 RV VI.74
165 Bhagavata Purana V.25.3 1988); Visnu Purana II.2 (Wilson 1980); Śiva
166 Purana, Umasamhita 17.33 (Shastri 1970)
MhB XII.285.72–208; XIII.17.1–182; Śiva Purana 189 RV VII.33.11; IX.78.3; SB XIII.4.3.8
Satarudrasamhita 18.26–27 190
167
RV I.28.3; AV IX.6.15; SB I.1.1.22; I.1.4.7
AV XI.2.2,17; SB IX.1.1.6 191
168
SB VI.5.1.26, 38; IX.5.1.7; XII.7.3.8,12
MhB XII.285.72–208; XII.17.1–182; Śiva Purana 192 RV III.52.5; IV.24.7; IX.8.5; IX.11.6; IX.11.2
Satarudrasamhita 18.26–27 193 RV IX.12.5; IX.17.4
169 RV I.151.4; VII.36.2 194 RV IX.2.2, IX.70.7; 32.4; IX.39.6; IX.64.17;
170 RV I.43 IX.90.2
171 RV I.24.7–9; SB VII.5.2.18 195 RV IX.74.1; X.94.5
172 RV VII.89.4 196 SB VII.5.1.10, 15, 23, 38
173 RV I.124.7 (Coomaraswamy 1979: 8) 197 SB VII.5.1.38
174 RV I.24.7–8; VII.87.1,6; VIII.82.2 198 SB IX.5.1.1–23
175 RV IX.95.4 199 AV X.7.28; SB X.4.1.2
176 RV VI.74.4; VII.65.3 VII.84.1–2; X.85.24 200 RV IX.33.5; IX.74.3; IX.94.41
177 RV X.75.5 201 SB III.5.2.34–35; IX.3.4.11,17