THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE POST ON THE BEHEMOTH PUBLISHED ON 6TH APRIL, 2024.
IT WAS WRITTEN IN
JANUARY 2020.
AS BEFORE 99.9% OF THE TEXT IS AS IT WAS, THEN.
I DON’T THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO “PROVE” WHETHER THE BEHEMOTH WAS A HIPPOPOTAMUS OR AN ELEPHANT.
ONE CAN MAKE A CASE FOR EACH.
I THINK THAT THE CASE FOR THE ELEPHANT IS MUCH
STRONGER.
THIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WITH MY OTHER VIEWS, ARTICULATED IN OTHER POSTS IN THIS BLOG, ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION, AND THE CONNECTION OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS WITH ANCIENT INDIANS (it was my idea, derived from nowhere & no one, that “Av-Ram” is actually “Father Ram” i.e. Rāma, the incarnation of Viṣṇu, and “Sarai”, i.e. “Sri” is Shrī, the consort of Viṣṇu or Lakṣmī' for all other related linguistic & conceptual connections, please see this post:
https://in-the-beginning-was-the-ecstasy.blogspot.com/2022/08/is-abraham-same-as-brahma-few-notes.html).
FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN THE AFRICAN ROOTS OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION & THE ANCIENT HEBREWS, THEY
CAN CAREFULLY PERUSE THE WORKS OF GERALD MASSEY – GREAT, TEEMING WITH FASCINATING INFORMATION &
INSIGHTS – AND YET, ULTIMATELY, DISHONEST.
THERE IS A VERY STRONG CASE FOR THE ORIGINS OF HUMAN
CIVILIZATION IN AFRICA, BUT I’LL STICK TO MY IDEA THAT IT STARTED AT A PLACE OF SIGNIFICANT VOLCANIC ACTIVITY
– “A TROPICAL PARADISE” – WHICH I PLACE AT THE FAR EAST – MOST PROBABLY
INDONESIA.
THERE WAS A GIGANTIC, TERRIBLE VOLCANIC ERUPTION (perhaps a series of volcanisms) – THE
COLLAPSE OF A GREAT VOLCANIC-MOUNTAIN – AND THE FALL OF THIS ORIGINAL CIVILIZATIONAL CENTRE –
AND FROM THERE, SOME RACES (NOT NECESSARILY ONE) CARRIED CIVILIZATION TO THE
REST OF THE WORLD.
I HAVE INDICATED EARLIER THAT FROM INDONESIA THEY
MIGHT HAVE COME TO INDIA, AND TO EGYPT.
THEY MIGHT NOT
HAVE GONE TO
EGYPT VIA INDIA.
THEY MIGHT HAVE GONE TO EGYPT (I MEAN ACTUALLY, TO THE EASTERNMOST TIP OF AFRICA), AND THIS,
ABOUT 9,000 BCE.
I SEE THEM PRIMARILY
AS DARK-SKINNED RACES, BUT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHITE-SKINNED ONES AMONGST THEM, TOO.
THESE WERE THE CIVILZERS OF MANKIND – THE ONES WHO BROUGHT THE KNOWLEDGE OF ARCHITECTURE,
ADVANCED MATHEMATICS, NAVIGATION, AGRICULTURE, ASTRONOMY, MEDICINE, AND ENGINEERING.
THEY WERE CITY-BUILDERS.
THEY ORGANIZED THE CHAOTIC PRIMITIVE LIFE OF TRIBES ACROSS
THE PLANET INTO A SEMBLANCE OF CIVILIZATION.
I CANNOT SAY DEINITIVELY WHETHER THEY WERE BROWN, DARK-BROWN, DARK
REDDISH-BROWN, OR BLACK – I’D GO
FIRST WITH DARK REDDISH-BROWN.
THEY WERE NOT THE ONLY HUMANS IN THE WORLD.
THERE MUST’VE BEEN HUMANS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD,
AT A HUNTING-GATHERING STAGE.
BUT OUR CIVILIZERS DEVELOPED & DISSEMINATED THE ARTS OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & AGRICULTURE.
THIS SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN INTO MANY MYTHS & LEGENDS
OF THE ANCIENT WORLD.
I’LL REPEAT: SOME OF THEM MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHITE SKINNED
– THERE ARE TELL-TALE SIGNS OF THIS.
SO WHEN I SAY THAT THE BEHEMOTH IS MOST PROBABLY BASED ON THE ASIATIC/INDIAN
ELEPHANT, MY CONVICTION IS NOT AN ISOLATED IDEA, BUT SHOULD BE TAKEN ALONG WITH
MY OTHER VIEWS TOO.
AGAIN, NONE OF THE IMAGES BELOW ARE MINE.
THEY WERE ALL COLLECTED YEARS BACK FROM THE INTERNET, MOSTLY
FROM WIKIMEDIA COMMONS, I THINK.
SOME FROM FLICKR.
I AM GRATEFUL TO ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN GENEROUS ENOUGH
TO PUT UP PICS ON THESE WEBSITES, SO HELPFUL TO THAT AMATEUR RESEARCHERS LIKE ME.
ALL THESE ARE JUST SPECULATIONS & OPINIONS ON MY PART: I HAVE NO RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS AGENDA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.”
– Job 40:21-21 New International Version Bible
It is on the basis of this translation, which differs substantially from the mainstream ones, that I shall try to strengthen the possible link of the Behemoth with the elephant.
Once the probability of it being the elephant is established, it’s not difficult to trace the origins of the symbolic creature to India, because it’s unlikely the Jews obtained the symbolism of the elephant from Egypt (whence they’re supposed to have resided for at least 4 centuries, mythically, since there is no historical evidence of their existence in that period, in that region), since there is none in Egypt itself.
I should begin with a strong word of caution, that translations of this passage are highly problematic, and differ rather wildly.
The Complete Jewish Bible says, for instance:-
“He lies down under the thorny lotus bushes
and is hidden by the reeds in the swamp;
the lotus bushes cover him with their shade,
and the willows by the stream surround him.”
I do not know if lotus plants can be called “bushes”, or have thorns.
Never heard of either.
But there is a lotus tree, and I can only wonder why the Bible would select that tree, very unremarkable, in context of a mythical beast considered “the chief of God’s ways...” (Job 40.19).
On the other hand, the lotus plant – the aquatic lotus/water-lily – has the deepest philosophical, symbolic & artistic significance in both India & Egypt.
If one substitutes the regular lotus or water-lily for “thorny lotus bushes”, the entire passage makes sense, because we have a coherent picture of swamps, lotuses, streams etc. which (in turn) makes sense because lotuses were always associated with swamps/marshes, and water bodies.
How can the same word be interpreted as “poplar” as well as “willow”, in the same context, is pretty much beyond me, but ancient languages are all extremely fluid, protean, plastic: it is possible.
The impression we get is: the translators don’t know :)
They too are only guessing.
The King James Bible says:-
“He lieth under the shady trees,
in the covert of the reed, and fens.
The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow;
the willows of the brook compass him about.”
How can one say “shady trees”, and another, “lotus plants”?
These gentlemen certainly don’t know!
They do know the multiple meaning & association of words, and have adopted whichever meaning convinces them, or there is some sort of memory-loss, or cover-up, over a period of time.
While no massive terrestrial animal maybe said to “lie under” lotus plants, or thorny lotus bushes – a case may still be made out for the elephant (even the hippo, for that matter) – these passages simply cannot apply to a dinosaur!
But it is very easy to show that the elephant – particularly in India – is always associated with water, rivers, lotus-pools, and the lotus itself; and yet, cannot be called an aquatic animal, like the makara: it remains terrestrial, at best amphibious.
{Fragment of Beam Showing Fish-tailed Elephant with Stalked Lotus in His Trunk: dated to 100 CE.
Here we have a composite, mythical & evidently aquatic creature; elephants, though terrestrial creatures, were invariably associated with water & the lotus, in India.}
It is also associated with trees & forests, and like the Behemoth, with hills & mountains.
“The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby...”
(Job 40:20 New International Version Bible)
“Surely the mountains bring him forth food,
where all the beasts of the field play...”
(Job 40: King James Bible)
We read, in the Rig Ved 8.45:-
“The slayer of Vritra (i.e. Indra), as soon as he was born, seized his arrow, and asked his mother, ‘Who are the terrible, who are renowned?’
Thy strong mother answered thee, ‘He who wishes thy enmity fights as the elephant (apsas) in the mountain (giri)’”.
Or, as another translation gives it: “a stately elephant on a hill”.
We read, of the region of Kailāsa, the Himalayan mountainous abode of Shiva, in brilliant Bānabhaṭṭa’s superb novel Kādambarī:
“The red arsenic-dust scattered by the elephants’ tusks crimsoned the earth.
The clefts of the rock were festooned with shoots of creepers, now separating and now uniting, hanging in twists, twining like leafage;
the stones were wet with the ceaseless dripping of gum-trees;
the boulders were slippery with the bitumen that oozed from the rocks.
The slope was dusty with fragments of yellow orpiment broken by the mountain horses’ hoofs;
powdered with gold scattered from the holes dug out by the claws of rats;
lined by the hoofs of musk-deer and yaks sunk in the sand and
covered with the hair of rallakas and raṅkus fallen about;
filled with pairs of partridges resting on the broken pieces of rock;
with the mouths of its caves inhabited by pairs of orang-outangs;
with the sweet scent of sulphur, and
with bamboos that had grown to the length of wands of office.”
One can see, in this magnificent, incomparable description, the presence of the elephant on the Kailāsa, alongside those of a host of other animals: mountain horses, rats, musk-deer, yaks, various types of deer, partridges, and some kind of apes (certainly not the orang-outang, which is a totally baseless translation).
The Himalayan elephant is a recurring image in Indian literature.
We read, in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (4.6), a similar description of the realm of Kailāsa:-
“The mountain range, overspread with herds of deer, is replete with all kinds of precious stones (maṇi) and is full of trees (druma), creepers (latā) and a diversity of other plants (gulma).
The mountain peaks with their crystal clear (amala) waterfalls have various caves that accommodate the siddhas who sport there with their loving wives.
Resounding with the cries of peacocks & the humming of bees blind with intoxication, there is the continuous song of cuckoos & chirping of other birds.
With the elephants (mātaṅga) moving the mountain itself seems to be moving,
with the sounds of the waterfalls the mountain itself seems to resound, and
with the trees that yield all desires, the mountain itself seems to be stretching its arms calling for the birds.”
In other words, elephants were very much associated not just with hills – giri – but also lofty mountains like the Kailāsa and the Gandhamādana.
(giri can be mountain, hill, elevation, any elevated place.)
They seem to live in harmony with myriad other creatures which inhabit these regions.
It is obvious, that they eat here, and in these two descriptions of Kailāsa (which is supposed to be a snowy, Himalayan mountain, btw), we see all the animals living joyfully, lustily, harmoniously & abundantly, together, alongside the elephants.
We read, of this mountain (which is nothing like the mountain in Nepal) (4.6.21):
“It is enjoyed by different types of deer like the karnântras, ekapadas, asvâsyas, vrikas and kastûrîs and has clusters of banana trees near the sandy banks of the beautiful hillside lakes brimming with lotuses...”
which reminds us of the sentence in the Behemoth passages:
“...all the wild animals play nearby...” (Job 40:20 NIV Bible).
This can hardly be said of the hippopotamus which is highly aggressive, violent & dangerous: and though the elephant is also eulogized for its aggression, this is not directed toward other animals except the lion.
India’s Prince of Poets Kālidasa’s Kumārasambhava begins with the description of the mountain Himālaya (personified by the father of Shiva’s consort, Pārvatī) (1.9):
“Where the odour, born of the milky sap of the cedar (sarala) trees, rubbed against by elephants to ease the itching sensation of their temples, makes the peaks fragrant...”
Thus, the elephant is a denizen of the hill/mountain, and forest, teeming with all other animals, which live alongside it in perfect harmony.
The hippopotamus is certainly a far less favorable candidate, when it comes to hills & mountains.
{Crossbar from railing from the Buddhist Bharhut Stupa, showing an elephant amidst lotuses, with a lotus flower & leaf in its trunk.
The Bharhut Stupa, about which much nonsense seems to have been written, is dated to about 2nd - 1st centuries BCE.}
Now, to go back to the principal point.
We must first focus on the association of the elephant with water & rain.
First, we see that the elephant is the vehicle of Indra, the god of rain, thunder & storm.
The elephant’s name is Airāvata, and it was produced during the famous Churning of the Ocean, along with significant other entities like the Kaustubha jewel (worn by Viṣṇu), the Pārijāta tree, and Viṣṇu’s consort Śrī herself.
The word airāvata is also understood as the rainbow (the bow of Indra), as well as a cloud glimmering with flashes of lightning.
Indeed, I shall come to the association of elephants with clouds.
Second, we have the elephant of the skies “vast as mountain peaks” (bhūbhṛt-śikhara-sannibha) (Viṣ.Pur. 1.17), or elephant of the quarters, or directions, of which we read, in the Vāyu Purāṇa (51.44-47):
“Elephants, mountains and clouds, along with serpents, belong to one and the same family, though they are severally manifested, since water is known as the source of (their origin).
During Hemanta (early winter) {the cloud} Parjanya & the elephants of the quarters born of chilliness shower snow (drops) for making the corn flourish.
... {the Gaṅgā} is the sacred, heavenly river, flooded over with water, stationed in the heavenly path like the divine lore (vidyā).
The elephants of the quarters spray all round drops of water from the Gaṅgā that flows through the sky by means of their huge trunks.
That (spray of water) is called hoarfrost.”
The account is identical to the one in the (Hindi translation of the) Matsya Purāṇa (Adhyāya 125); the words in the original Sanskrit, tuṣāra & nihāra, are used respectively, for “snow (drops)” & “hoarfroast”.
I doubt if snow drops make corn flourish, but that’s how the English translation has been made.
The dictionary defines tuṣāra as: frost, cold, snow, mist, dew, thin rain; and probably thin rain should be correct.
nihāra is understood as mist; perhaps hoarfrost is another meaning.
It can be seen that the elephants are associated with rivers & with water, even if here we’re talking about the celestial Ganges.
The imagery, the symbolism, the connection, is what concerns us here.
The Viṣṇu Purāṇa (2.9) does say:
“If ... rain falls from a bright and cloudless sky whilst the sun is in the mansion of Krittikā and the other asterisms counted by odd numbers, as the 3rd, 5th, &c., the water, although that of the Gangā of the sky, is scattered, by the elephants of the quarters, not by the rays of the sun: it is only when such rain falls, and the sun is in the even asterisms, that it is distributed by his beams.”
There is a typical cosmological-meteorological-
{Below:
Indra & Indrāṇī depicted in the central circle, from Cave No. 3, Badami Caves, Karnataka, India: one can see Indra’s elephant Airāvata behind him.
Airāvata comes from Irāvat: the dictionary says: ‘produced from the ocean’, N. of Indra’s elephant (considered as the prototype of the elephant race and the supporter of the east quarter); Airāvata is produced during the famous Churning of the Ocean.
The Ocean is itself known as irāvat, which I take as full of water, rather than full of food: the term is applied to clouds too.
Well, at least the uploader of the picture titles the picture as Indra & Indrāṇī, which means that Indrāṇī is holding the mushroom-shaped umbrella.
As far as I understand, almost all umbrellas ever thought of by man, look like mushrooms, some variety or the other.
airāvata itself, in Hindi, is defined as a cloud glistening with lightning; as the rainbow; as the thunderbolt: all again, directly related to water, rain, moisture, storms etc.}
This too is rooted in the legend of the churning of the ocean, in which Lakṣmī, or Śrī, is produced from the churned ocean.
We read, in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (1.9):
“Then, seated on a full-blown lotus, and holding a water-lily in her hand, the goddess Śrī, radiant with beauty, rose from the waves.
The great sages, enraptured, hymned her with the song dedicated to her praise.
... Gangā and other holy streams attended for her ablutions; and the elephants of the skies, taking up their pure waters in vases of gold, poured them over the goddess, the queen of the universal world.”
This particular image is one of the single most important and pervasive of all images in India, and is found, not only on the top of doors & entrances of Hindu temples, but also on Jain & Buddhist monuments.
{Gajalakṣmī depicted on one of the gateways of the Buddhist Sanchi Stupa.
Can anyone tell me what is this quintessential Hindu goddess doing on one of the oldest extant Buddhist monuments?
Of course, most discussions of Buddhism conveniently ignore the fact that Buddhism more or less took over the entire cosmology, metaphysics & myth of Hinduism en masse, and worships Brahmā, Indra, and even Nārāyaṇa (who, possibly, is not seen in the same light as, or equated with, the Brahmanical Viṣṇu).
I think there are at least 3, if not 4, depictions of Gajalakṣmī on the gateways of Sanchi Stupa, but I have not exactly counted.
Which means the conceptions, symbolism, iconography & the legends behind Gajalakṣmī were fully established by the time of the Sanchi Stupa gateways.
On can see the mushroom-shaped parasol placed right above Lakṣmī.
Beneath that, two depictions of Gajalakṣmī from the Buddhist Bharhut Stupa, which again, has multiple depictions of the goddess.}
These elephants of the quarters, are called diggaja, which is a term used for someone supreme, a chief, a leader, a stalwart.
Besides the general adoration of the sheer physical might & ferocity & intrepid masculinity of the elephant, this particular term, diggaja, is reminiscent of the mysterious importance & high status of the Behemoth, which is a type of powerful being.
The Mahābhārata, for instance, is full of instances in which mighty warriors fighting each other, or powerful warriors in general, are compared to rutting elephants, or elephants in heat.
So, for instance, we read of all the princes vying for the hand of Draupadī (1.178):
“Then those youthful princes adorned with ear-rings, vying with one another and each regarding himself accomplished in arms and gifted with might, stood up brandishing their weapons.
And intoxicated with pride of beauty, prowess, lineage, knowledge, wealth, and youth, they were like Himalayan elephants in the season of rut with crowns split from excess of temporal juice.”
That the diggajas are showerers is a common motif, in Indian literature.
So, for example, in Kādambarī (8), we’re told, in an eulogistic passage describing a particular king:
“... like the ocean, he was the source of Lakṣmī (i.e prosperity, splendor, glory)
... like the sun, he rose daily in fresh splendour
... like the elephant of the quarters, he constantly poured forth a stream of generosity...”.
Another beautiful passage, from the same text (224), in which a powerful king is described with a string of similes, comparing him to his vassal kings:
“He showed like the coral-tree amid the white buds of the kalpa-trees ...
or Airāvata amid the elephants of the quarters bedewing him with water from their trunks ...”
The idea doesn’t have to be stretched much further.
The next point to be established is the connection between elephants and lotuses & lotus-ponds – which crop up in connection with the Behemoth too.
In India, the elephant is almost formulaically associated with lotuses, and lotus-ponds.
In case of the iconography of Gajalakṣmī, we see the elephants standing on the top of lotuses, but this maybe said to be common enough in India, where most depicted beings stand atop lotuses.
{Below:
Elephants adoring or worshiping a Buddhist stūpa, from the Sanchi Stupa gateways.
It would be absurd to expect a direct, literal interpolation of the Asian elephant, or even African elephant, or hippopotamus, in the Hebrew text: there will be changes, there will be some modifications, since the Behemoth is not openly identified with any known creature, but root-concepts, fundamental connections, would be retained.
Thus, the lotus is associated with both the elephant in India & the hippopotamus in Egypt, and this basic mythical-poetic-symbolic association is retained in the images built around the Behemoth: but it would be rather unwise to look for the exact same imagery: to be told, for instance, that the Behemoth tosses about lotus-flowers with its mouth.
That we cannot expect.
Gerald Massey wrote:
“The ivory in Hebrew is called SHEN HABBIM, ivory, or elephant’s teeth (margin).
This habbim, says Max Muller, is without a derivation in Hebrew, but is most likely a corruption of the Sanskrit name for elephant, IBHA, preceded by the Semitic article.
Again, there is no need of corruption as in Egyptian “Ab” is the name both for the elephant and the ivory.
The Ab had earlier forms in Hab and Kab, so that the names of the peacock, ape, and ivory, may be foreign in Hebrew without being derived from Sanskrit, or Ophir being in India, or a navy of a King Solomon having existed that traded with India.”
Unnecessary.
Both Massey & Muller display their limited knowledge & prejudice – extreme prejudice in case of Massey – and both forget to mention that one word for the elephant in Sanskrit is kapi, so that “habbim” doesn’t have to be derived from the “Egyptian “Ab”” or “earlier forms in Hab and Kab”, or rather, the “earlier (Egyptian) forms” may have been directly derived from Sanskrit, i.e. Kab, Hab, & finally, the ab, and the habbim, from the Sanskrit kapi.}
One can see the elephant-lotus association in the story of Gajendra-mokṣam, or the Liberation of Gajendra, in which a mighty elephant, the leader of a herd, whose leg is caught by a crocodile/alligator (or some watery beast) in a lotus-lake, unable to extract himself, prays to Viṣṇu holding up a lotus with his trunk.
It would be a good idea to give the lovely, evocative passages from the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (8.2.20-27) in full, because they would convey more than one idea reminiscent of the Behemoth:
“ The leader of the elephants, who in the company of his wives lived in the forest, one day wandered around on that mountain and [searching for water] broke through many thickets full of thorns, creepers and all kinds of trees and plants.
Just his smell was enough to make all the lions & other beasts of prey, the other elephants, the rhinoceroses, big snakes and the white & black camarî deer flee in fear.
By his mercy the foxes, boars, buffaloes, bears, porcupines, gopucchas & other deer, wolves, monkeys & small animals like rabbits & such, could freely roam without fear.
Dripping from his temples and agitated [in must] he, surrounded by intoxicated, drinking bees, and followed by the other he-&-she-elephants, and the young in their midst, made the earth all around the mountain tremble.
From a distance, smelling the water with the pollen of the lotus flowers carried by the breeze, he, with his thirsty company, and his vision clouded under influence, hurried for the bank of that lake.
Entering its pellucid, cool water, he, with his trunk drank his fill from the nectarean lotus pollen mixture, took a good bath. and was thus relieved of all fatigue.
Drawing the water with his trunk and spraying it over him, he inspired his wives and children also to take a bath and drink.
Thus being engaged he, like a concerned householder being overly attached to his family, took, under the control of the deluding material world, no heed of any possible danger.
He then met with the fate that his foot ... right there was caught by a mighty & angry crocodile.
The elephant thereupon with all his strength strenuously tried to free himself from his dangerous position.”
The mighty elephant is unable to extricate himself from the jaws of the crocodile.
Helpless, he prays to the Supreme Lord, Viṣṇu.
Then, finally (8.3):
“Hearing his prayer, the Lord of all worlds, who understood his plight, came as fast as He could, together with the denizens of heaven, who offered their prayers.
Carried by Garuḍa and equipped with His disc and other weapons he soon arrived where Gajendra was.
As soon as he, who in the water so violently was captured and was suffering, saw the Lord, who on the back of Garuḍa raised His disc in the sky, he lifted his trunk holding a lotus flower and uttered with difficulty:
‘Oh Nārāyaṇa, Teacher of Completeness, oh Supreme Lord, You I offer my obeisances.’”
{The Liberation of Gajendra, from Kangra, c.1830.
The watery monster that has seized Gajendra (which means King of Elephants), is a peculiar creature I cannot quite identify.
It is certainly not a crocodile or alligator: it has the peculiar shape of a gigantic rat.
Other depictions are different.
As you all can see, Garuḍa is a parrot: though he is mostly portrayed as such in our 18th & 19th century paintings/ illustrations, it is not necessarily so.
There is no fixed identity of Garuḍa either: in some paintings he is depicted as a combination of a cock & a parrot, in some mostly like a cock.
Beneath that, probably one of the oldest known depictions of this legend, from the temple at Deogarh, dated to the 6th century CE.
Here, the water-monster seems to be the nāga, but I am not sure: it should be remembered that the word nāga means both serpent & elephant.
Gajendra holds up a cluster of two lotuses & a lotus-bud; the identity of Garuḍa is indeterminable.}
We see:-
1. The elephant as a highly impressive creature: powerful, strong, virile, impetuous, proud & somewhat violent.
2. It scaring away other predatory & big, powerful animals like lions & rhinoceros.
3. It inhabiting mountains & forests, but also a denizen of rivers, lotus-pools, & lakes.
4. Smaller animals of the mountain-forest live in peace & harmony alongside this mighty being.
5. It is fascinated by the fragrance of lotus flowers, which draws him to a lotus-lake: he plunges into the lake with his herd, and bathes & drinks the scented, cool water (reminiscent of “Under the lotus plants it lies ... hidden among the reeds in the marsh ... the lotuses conceal it in their shadow ... the poplars by the stream surround it” said in relation to the Behemoth).
6. He holds up a lotus-flower, in praying to Viṣṇu.
Given that the Leviathan, described immediately after the Behemoth in the Book of Job, is most likely a crocodile, or some sort of aquatic monster, I think it is quite compelling that the Behemoth is an elephant.
As we have seen, the creature which grabs Gajendra in the lotus-lake is not portrayed consistently, but is most likely a composite creature based on the crocodile/alligator.
I had said I would incorporate some information from the Wikipedia article on the Behemoth into my analysis.
We have just read, in the Bhāgavat Purāṇa (8.2.21-22):
“Just his smell was enough to make all the lions & other beasts of prey, the other elephants, the rhinoceroses, big snakes and the white & black camarī deer flee in fear.
By his mercy the foxes, boars, buffaloes, bears, porcupines, gopucchas & other deer, wolves, monkeys & small animals like rabbits & such, could freely roam without fear.”
Strangely enough, the Wikipedia article says something almost identical, of the Behemoth:
“In the Haggadah, Behemoth’s strength reaches its peak on the summer solstice of every solar year (around 21 June).
At this time of year, Behemoth lets out a loud roar that makes all animals tremble with fear, and thus renders them less ferocious for a whole year.
As a result, weak animals live in safety away from the reach of wild animals.
This mythical phenomenon is shown as an example of divine mercy and goodness.
Without Behemoth’s roar, traditions narrate, animals would grow more wild and ferocious, and hence go around butchering each other and humans.”
Whatever the significance, whether the Behemoth represents a solar-fiery power, or a watery-rainy one, the idea is astonishingly identical.
Solar-fiery because this is the time when the power of the Sun reaches its peak: at the Summer Solstice, the length of the day is the longest in the year: after that, it keeps reducing, though it remains more than the length of the night.
Probably the roar of the Behemoth refers to the excruciating blast of heat of summer, which makes ferocious animals less fierce?
On the other hand, this was the time of both the heliacal rising of the Nile in Egypt & the onset of its flood, as well as the onset of monsoon rains in India: which might also be said to make the predatory animals less ferocious, and small animals more strong & prolific.
Just thoughts.
To move on, the same inimitable text, describes the frolics of Kṛṣṇa and the cow-herdesses, gopīs, in great detail, and we read, in course of his dalliances (10.33):
“Being tired, He, with His garland crushed & smeared by the kunkuma of their breasts ... followed by bees, as the leader of the Gandharvas, entered with them the water [of the river Yamunā] in order to dispel the fatigue, just as a bull elephant does when he, with his wives, has broken the irrigation dikes [i.e. the normal rules of conduct].
In the water He was splashed from all sides by the girls who looked at Him with love & laughter ...
... being worshiped by the heavenly carriers [of the gods] with a rain of flowers He, who is personally always satisfied within, in that place reveled in playing [with the gopîs] like He was the king of the elephants.
Just like an elephant that is dripping rut with his wives, He ... surrounded by the swarm of His bees and women, passed through a grove nearby the Yamunā that everywhere was filled with the fragrance of the flowers in the water & on the land, carried by the wind.”
Here we have a complete picture of the robust, masculine lusty power of the elephant, so often associated with water-bodies.
The watery-associations with the elephant are numerous, beautiful, charming, superbly poetic, and so, yet again, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa tells us (8.10.25):
“Indra mounted on Airâvata his carrier elephant that was dripping must, looked as beautiful as the sun shining over Udayagiri’s cascades”.
Udayagiri being the mountain of sunrise.
The same image is found in the Rāmāyaṇa (2.94.13) too, in which Rāma, describing the splendors of the mountain Citrakūṭa to Sītā, says:
“This mountain resembles an elephant with ichor flowing from its forehead, as from its crevices, springs & cascades flow here and there.”
Here the mountain and water symbolism are both integrated, and it should be remembered that in the Indian mind, mountains were inherently, almost inseparably, associated with clouds & water.
Though it isn’t fully clear to me why the elephant was associated with clouds, which bear & shower rain, an evident factor is their massiveness & color: the greyish blue-black color of elephants reminds one of clouds.
But the persistent association of elephants with water-bodies must be another important factor.
It’s clear that the clouds meant are water-bearing, rain-giving clouds which pour down floods of rain on the Earth, since these are of a dark blue-black hue.
It is clear that the “elephant of the skies/quarters” are also a type of atmospheric-cloud phenomenon.
{I found this painting on this website:
https://unmattata.tumblr.com/
with these lines:
“Playful elephants – wallowing in the lotus pool, dancing on the shore – are depicted under a blazing sky before the monsoon.” — Lucille Schulberg, Historic India}
I can give another example, associating the elephant-imagery with lotus-imagery.
We read about the two sons of the God of Wealth, Kubera in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (10.10):
“In that garden full of flowers, they, most bewildered, with their eyes rolling because of being intoxicated from
Because they wanted to enjoy themselves, they, in the company of the young girls entered the Ganges full of lotus beds, like two male elephants with their she-elephants.”
Alternative translation:
“Within the waters of the Gaṅgā, which were crowded with gardens of lotus flowers {or, I think: embellished with/beautiful with lotuses}, the two sons of Kuvera would enjoy young girls, just like two male elephants enjoying in the water with female elephants.”
One can give many more examples, but this should be a sufficient indication.
At least in some translations, the Behemoth is clearly associated with lotuses.
When the King James Version says “shady trees”, it isn’t so convincing.
Just about any & every animal out there can be said to “lie under shady trees”.
What is the big deal about it?
What is the point?
What is special, or memorable, or noteworthy?
The Hebrew original is tse’el, which means:
« “a kind of lotus”,
« “a thorny lotus shrub”.
If one were to accept the New International Version, it all makes perfect sense: we are being given the picture of an amphibian in a watery environment.
The lotus-tree or lotus-shrub or even the ordinary reed, do not fit in as deftly & seamlessly as the lotus & water-lily.
Even the hippopotamus, a beast primarily inhabiting rivers & marshes, is consistently depicted in Ancient Egyptian figurines with lotuses & water-lilies & aquatic plants & animals painted all over its body (see below; figurine dated to ca.1961–1878 BCE).
The word bitstsah, translated marsh or swamp, also makes sense because the lotus is often said to grow in slush, mire, or swamp-like ponds.
Hence, in Sanskrit, it’s also called paṅkaja, i.e. born of/in paṅka, i.e. mud, mire, dirt.
Animals are known to roll in slush or wet mud, to keep their bodies cool.
Elephants do scatter mud on themselves, something noticed by Indians, and written into their literary images.
We have a picture of rivers, aquatic flowers, & swampy areas (i.e slushy mud).
In the Buddhist-Sanskrit text Lalita-Vistāra, we read of Buddha lamenting the condition of all sentient beings, in a string of similes saying (15/207):
“These childish beings are sinking, like an old elephant in a swamp” {“iha te bālāḥ saṃsīdanti jīrṇagajā iva paṅke”}.
The same text also says (12/137):
“Lotuses thrive in filthy swamps ...” {“saṃkīrṇi paṅki padumāni vivṛddhimanti”}
The word in both is paṅka.
Of the Behemoth, again, we read:
“He sleepeth under the shadow, in the covert of the reed, and in moist places” – Douay-Rheims Bible.
Per se, an elephant which “lieth under the shady trees” is just as likely as one which lies “under the lotus plants”, which is just as likely as one that roams mountains.
{Again, a panel from the gateways of the Sanchi Stupa.
These are scenes of people in their pleasure pastimes.
They are evidently on some sort of mountain with gushing cascades.
There is a pool at the bottom of the panel, in which two elephants carry their riders for some sort of jaunt.
The elephants carry clusters of lotuses/water-lilies in their trunks: the pool is brimming with the same.
This is strongly reminiscent of several descriptions in many Indian texts.}
When we’re told, by the KJV that the Behemoth lies “in the covert of the reed”, the word covert, Hebrew “cether”, here means “covering, shelter, hiding place, secrecy; hiding place, shelter, secret place”.
The word translated “reed”, is qaneh, which means:
« reed, stalk, bone, balance
« stalk
« water-plant, reed
« calamus (aromatic reed)
A field or grove of reeds is a concept met with in both Egypt & India (I’m not aware about Levantine/Mesopotamian cultures) but in my humble opinion, this simply refers to the stalks of the lotus/water-lily flowers & leaves, and the elephant submerged in (bathing in, frolicking in, swimming in) a lotus-lake or pool.
There seems to be little sense in saying a majestic, gigantic animal is hidden by reeds, which act as a secret cover for it – unless it is lying down, or sleeping, amongst reeds.
But a lake or pond thick with clusters of radiant, colorful, upraised lotus/water-lily flowers & leaves, can be refuge of an elephant, which thus appears to have taken shelter in it, bathing or sporting in it playfully & lustily, & appears to be encompassed by, or is seemingly concealed by, the long stalks of the flowers & leaves.
{Lotus/Water-lily-pool images, or clusters of lotus flowers & leaves in water-bodies, from the Internet.
I hope my point is clear: this is what one would call a “forest of lotus flowers” or plants.
The hippopotamus as well as the elephant can be said to be submerged in a river abloom with this veritable grove of the stalks & stems of lotuses or water-lilies rising high above the water, which is imaged as being “in the covert of the qaneh”, or, as the NIV Bible puts it: “...the lotuses conceal it in their shadow...”.
On the other hand, one might also say: “Under the lotus plants it lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh...” as in, there are reeds amongst the lotus-plants amidst which it lies.
Reeds would grow in the same places, side-by-side, with lotuses or water-lilies.
We do see elephants imagined as being surrounded by, standing atop, swimming amongst, and bearing, lotuses, in Indian art.}
Given my idea that:
1. the elephant has either inspired the Behemoth, i.e. the Behemoth is a composite-mythical creature based on the elephant; or
2. the elephant has been glossed over by later writers, since the Hebrews evidently disliked it, refused to recognize its existence, while valuing ivory,
I think the mental-poetic-symbolic images & associations add up.
It could well be a gigantic boar, or buffalo, or bull, or hippo, but the typical ideas surrounding the elephant in India, all cohere.
“Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox” (Job 40.15).
There is something undoubtedly esoteric and/or mystical out here, but the fact is that not only was the elephant confused with oxen (as noted by Pliny, quoted in the previous forward), but elephants do eat grass.
The word translated “grass” is chatsiyr, which comes from chatser, court, enclosure, a yard (as inclosed by a fence); also a hamlet (as similarly surrounded with walls).
chatsiyr itself also means a dwelling, an abode, settled abode.
This apparently indicates a domestic environment.
The word translated “grass”, thus, seems to refer to hay, amongst other things.
Accordingly, the Wycliffe Bible says:
“Lo! behemoth, whom I made with thee, shall as an ox eat hay.
(Lo! the behemoth, which I made with thee, eateth hay like an ox.)”
Clearly, the Behemoth is not an ox, since we’re clearly told he eats like an ox, but the fact is elephants do eat hay.
{Gajalakṣmī, lustrated by elephants, this time atop the entrance of a Jain temple, this one at Shravanabelagola.
Undoubtedly, one of the most universal images of Indian temple art & architecture: though there is nothing here, which is either uniquely Hindu, or Jain, or Buddhist.
The same iconography can be found in the images of all three systems.}
There is one last point which I would like to make.
The Book of Job makes a very peculiar statement, in relation to the Behemoth.
It says (40.19): “He [is] the chief of the ways of God”.
I have no clue what is this supposed to mean, and I doubt if any modern reader or commentator has.
A maverick oddity, a fringe-lunatic like Gerald Massey has his own ideas, about it referring to the Great Bear constellation (as the primeval hippopotamus Great Goddess), but I doubt his theory.
At the same time, it should be obvious that the Behemoth has some very great significance, whether positive or not, is doubtful.
In India, the elephant is both positive & negative.
It is a type of strength, force, power, beauty, masculinity, gracefulness, lordliness, pride (in a positive sense) – it is also a type of restlessness, often destructive & violent, a type of pride (in a negative sense), of something unruly, to be tamed & brought under control, of something to be subjugated, even plundered.
On the one hand it provides a billion Hindus with the god Gaṇeśa, a god of auspicious beginnings, son of Shiva & Pārvatī, on the other hand, it also provides us with the image of the Asura Gaja, slain & skinned by the very same Shiva.
As solely generated from Pārvatī’s body, the elephant-headed Gaṇeśa is the direct offspring of Prakṛti, the root-material cause of the universe, the Magna Mater dominant over all, the Great Genetrix of the cosmos, and thus, maybe likened to the (Materalist) Logos.
As offspring of both Shiva & Pārvatī, he can be called “the Lord (īśa/pati) of Hosts (gaṇa)” (an epithet applied to Jehovah as Sabaoth).
While usually not employed as a figure of outright evil, the Hindus apparently preferred the lion to the elephant (a simple fact that big cats are the best predators?), and constantly depict the elephant worsted by, and dominated over, by the lion.
The lion is admired & almost eulogized for having torn off these mysterious “pearls” to found in the frontal lobes of elephants.
Thus, the Behemoth which is slain by the Hebrew God, and whose meat is to be eaten, can be traced to the complex, multidimensional treatment of elephant symbolism in India (and totally absent in Egypt).
{A rather curious & somewhat frightening image of Gaṇeśa from Indonesia (I think).
He is surrounded with skulls, which is unusual for Indian Hindus, used to a very “cute”, benign, and beautiful image.
There are skulls all over this Gaṇeśa, whose head is somewhat sunk low into his torso, and the same can be seen in some other depictions from South-East Asia too, where he is often seated on a ring of skulls.
I am yet to come across something like this in India.}
Generally, the elephant seems to enjoy a more exalted status in Buddhism where, indeed, it is a type of calmness.
Gautama Buddha descends from his heavenly realm into the womb of his mother Māyā, in the form of a silvery, white elephant (with 6 tusks).
I wonder if these ideas factor in, into the discussion of a being called “the chief of the ways of God”.
In the Buddhist text, the Larger Sukhāvatī Vyūha (37), we read, of the exalted & perfected inhabitants of the land of Sukhāvatī:
“...by overpowering great troops, they are like bulls;
by the highest restraint of their thoughts, they are like great elephants ...
calm like elephants, because their senses are neither crooked nor shaken”.
I certainly do not find a better contender for the Behemoth, than the elephant, with the probable qualification that the tail which he sways like a cedar, or holds upright as a cedar, is taken to be the phallus, or (what’s more likely) the trunk of the elephant.
There is a sort of cover-up, or lost image, an abandoned & glossed over idea out here, because the translations are not necessarily in agreement, and often say different things.
Its identity seems deliberately nebulous.
It is, most probably, meant to be a fantastic, extraordinary, composite creature unlike any other, original & different.
But the baseline is very much that of an elephant.
Like the Behemoth the elephant is repeatedly imaged, with profound awe & adoration, as a powerful, strong, virile, male creature.
Its masculinity is specially marked out, as in the rutting male elephant streaming “ichor” or “must”.
{This is a strong point against the Egyptian hippopotamus: while there might have been hippo (male) gods/beings, the hippo was most significantly worshipped as a goddess pertaining to pregnancy, child-birth, & fertility.
Also, there is nothing in a hippo which can be said to sway “like a cedar”.}
In its magnitude & might, it is invariably compared to a mountain, or a mountain peak, or (as poetic hyperbole) its tread is said to make mountains tremble.
It has been said to carry 30-60 men on its back: however exaggerated that number, it means the animal created an impression of awe-full enormity.
It eats grass or hay like an ox, and was historically actually seen as an ox.
It roams mountains & crashes through forests.
It plunges into rivers, drinks deeply from them, sprays streams of water from its hose/spigot-like trunk, sports in river-waters with its harem of she-elephants.
It covers itself with slush & mud, and is known to frequent swamps.
It frolics in lotus-lakes or water-lily pools.
It is said to agitate or roil up rivers or lakes {“Behold, he spoileth the river, and hasteth not...”}
{so, for e.g., in the Bhāg. Pur. 9.10.17:
“After entering Laṅkā, the monkey soldiers ... occupied all the sporting houses, granaries, treasuries, palace doorways, city gates, assembly houses... When the city’s crossroads, platforms, flags & golden waterpots on its domes were all destroyed, the entire city of Laṅkā appeared like a river disturbed by a herd of elephants.”
Also Bāṇabhaṭṭa quote from previous mail.}.
It is associated with ponds/pools covered with (thick clusters of) lotuses which can be compared to a veritable field of reeds or stalks or water-plants (alternately, both lotuses & reeds are found alongside each other) – with all sorts of trees (whether bamboo forests & mango trees) – with beasts in the forests & in mountains/hills.
It has a magnificent, dexterous, multipurpose python-like trunk which it sways majestically like a “cedar”.
It also has a tail which can reach a length upto 5 feet – and even more, if historical accounts of its majestic dimensions be true – often longer than the height of an average adult man.
Its ferocious, energetic masculinity is pronounced by its organ of generation.
It is known for its literally gushing sexual prowess, its dripping masculinity, its fierce & restless virile energy.
It is associated with clouds, with moisture, with rain, with spraying/showering of water (from its trunks), with mountains (as intimately related to water, & as source of rivers).
It all adds up pretty well, if you ask me.
