Ghrta is clarified butter. Since cow was in abundance in the Vedic age, there was also abundance of gh?ta. As such, it was a matter of great use in life. It was used in sacrifices as well as was an important ingredient of food. Consequently it has found a significant place in the Vedas.
Gh?ta was used during the Vedic period as well as throughout the whole history of India as a delicious and extremely nourishing food content is evident from the heavenly damsel Urva??’s statement in the ?gveda that she took a lump of gh?ta only once a day and on the strength of it moved around fully contented even after four years of departure from Pururavas. (?gveda X.95.16 )
As the Vedic seer was in the quest of the essence of things, he did not permit the product of milk stop at the stage of butter. He saw to it that the butter could be made rather durable. With this end in view, he clarified it and thus could produce gh?ta, which is durable and can assume two forms, solid and liquid without losing anything in essence.
Vedic seer compares the look of Agni with the gh?ta prepared out of the milk of cow and clarified in fire (Rigveda, IV.1.6).
Needless to point out that the gh?ta prepared out of the cow’s milk is slightly yellowish as compared to that prepared out of buffalo’s milk, which is white. Seer V?madeva repeats the same simile when he observes that Agni in appearance is akin to perfectly clarified gh?ta, shining and taintless, as well as is gold (Rigveda, IV.10.6). Thus in the seer’s view, Agni, gold and gh?ta are kindred in appearance and basics in the total scheme of things.
As such, gh?ta comes to form the ideal of the appearance of gods and their costumes. Ap?m Nap?t, for instance, along with waters in the form of smiling beautiful ladies around him, has been described as clad in attire akin to gh?ta in appearance (Rigveda, II.35.4).
Vi?v?mitra also, like G?tsamada, views Agni as clad in gh?ta (Rigveda, III. 27.5). So is the case with V?madeva with respect to sacrifices, however. He describes them as gh?tanir?ijah, adorned in gh?ta (Rigveda, IV.37.2). Vasi??ha also observes how Mitra and Varu?a have been given the attire of gh?ta by seers (Rigveda, VII .64.1). As is evident from the literal meaning of the word devat?, god, it is but natural for the latter to be shining. It is quite in keeping with this feature of gods in general that they are envisaged as robed in gh?ta signifying thereby their lustrous appearance.
The word gh?ta does not remain confined to its literal sense. When a particular deity is described as gh?ta?irnik, the word gh?ta in this usage comes to signify particularly lustre rather than the substance called gh?ta.
Indeed when a particular word or object is used to point to a particular feature of itself alone instead of the whole of it, it becomes symbolic in its usage. It comes to signify something quite different and detached from what it literally stands for. Here gh?ta, for instance, is meant only to signify the lustrousness of the appearance of the divinity concerned.
Interestingly, the word prat?ka, used subsequently to signify symbol as such, occurs several times in the ?gveda particularly in association with gh?ta.
In all such usages, gh?ta forms the first member of the compound while the second one is formed either by Agni or by U?as.
In one such mantra, for instance, Agni is described as gh?ta-prat?ka as also ?tasya dhursad, sitting at the crest of ?ta, the universal order or sacrifice (Rigveda, I.143.7). Here while gh?ta stands for lustrousness, prat?ka signifies resemblance to. Thus Agni is called gh?taprat?ka on account of its resemblance to gh?ta in lustrousness.
The word prat?ka has been taken sometimes in the Br?hma?as in the sense of mouth (Brihadaranyaka Upanisad I.5.2). Prat?ka signifies mouth by virtue of its power of consumption. This is what happens in the process of symbolisation also. Symbolisation entails de facto consumption of the object symbolised by the symbol.
For instance, when U?as is described as gh?taprat?ka, gh?ta takes the whole of U?as in its ambit and comes to the fore to represent her in all her lustrousness. In such cases, dimensional proportion between the symbol and the object symbolised stands rather discounted. It is in this discounting of the proportion, of course, that lays the utility of the symbol to a great extent.
The above, however, is just the elementary state of symbolisation. Starting from here it may take a long stride where neither the symbol nor the object symbolised is allowed to remain in its original form. One such case in relationship to gh?ta is the description of U?as as cows milching gh?ta.
This expression is placed against the background of the description of U?as in the plural as rich in cows as well as horses and heroes and invocation of them as such to cast their brilliant lustre down to the earth. With this ground-work they are conceived as cows yielding gh?ta for universal consumption and all round protection and well being (Rigveda, VII.41.7.).
If the U?asas are expected to yield gh?ta, it is quite in the fitness of things to conceive of them as cows. Cows, however, do not yield gh?ta directly. Gh?ta is a product of milk produced through human effort.
Conceiving of U?as as yielding gh?ta involves a long process of figurative thinking including representation of dawns by cows and abstraction of gh?ta out of the cow’s milk. Moreover, if U?as as a cow is not the real cow, the gh?ta yielded by the U?as-cow can by no means be the real gh?ta.
It must symbolise what U?as has been characterised by in the first part of the mantra at least. These features of U?as are their abundance in cows, horses and heroes. While cow, among several other things, stands for illumination and knowledge, horse and hero symbolise strength, particularly animal and human. Thus gh?ta would naturally symbolise illumination and strength by virtue of its properties of lustre and nourishment.
