Upabrmhana and Rgveda Interpretation

Author(s): T G Manikar
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/001582/1

Page #1

THE UPABRÁHANA AND THE RGVEDA INTERPRETATION
L. D. SERIES 50 GENERAL EDITOR DALSUKH MALVANIA
BY T. G. MAINKAR PROFESSOR OF SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY
WROR
Uh25
L. D. INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY AHMEDABAD 9
DO

Page #2

THE UPABRÁHANA AND THE RGVEDA INTERPRETATION
L. D. SERIES 50
GENERAL EDITOR DALSUKH MALVANIA
T. G. MAINKAR PROFESSOR OF SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY
A L, D. INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY AHMEDABAD - 9

Page #3

Printed by Swami Tribhuvandas Shastri, Shree Ramananda Printing Press Kankaria Road, Ahmedabad-22. and published by Dalsukh Malvania Director L. D. Institute of Indology Ahmedabad-9.
FIRST EDITION July, 1975
ORICERLLES
Rinise 1 s . th Pivs R$ L. Ii incode:20)

Page #4

The L. D. Institute of Indology has great pleasure in publishing the three lectures on 'The Upabrinhana and the Rgveda Interpretation', delivered by Dr. T. G. Mainkar in L. D. Lecture Series in November, 1974.
FOREWORD
two
The Rgveda is like an eternal pcem suggesting new meaning every time one reads it. It has been variously interpreted by scholars, Eastern and Western, Dr. Mainkar has chosen an interesting subject for his lectures. He has made a serious attempt in his lectures to interpret those unintelligible' hymns in the light coming from the Itihasa and the Purana. Assumption of the continuity of tradition underlies this method, and the learned lecturer accepts it. He is very conscious of the misuse and limitations of the method. But he maintains that on that account one should not discard it. If it helps us where nothing can help us in interpreting the Rgveda, we should seek its help. He has ably shown how the study of the Itibāsa and the Purana make intelligible the so-called unintelligible hymns. He has also demonstrated that sometimes the Rgveda helps us to understand and interpret the unintelligible portions of the Itibasa and the Purana. Thus for the understanding of the Veda, the study of the Itihasa and the Purāṇa is necessary; and conversely, for the understanding of the Itihasa and the Purana the study of the Veda is necessary.
I am thankful to Dr. Mainkar for these three lectures which he prepared at our instance, I have no doubt that the students, teachers, and others interested in this subject will find this book interesting and illuminating.
L. D. Institute of Indology Ahmedabad-380009.
15th July, 1975

Dalsukh Malvania
Director

Page #5

Page #6

PREFACE
The authorities of the L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad graciously invited me to deliver lectures under their auspicies. The option for the choice of the sueject for my lectures, given to me was very wide indeed. I chose to speak on "The Upabrmbana and the Rgveda interpretation, and delivered three lectures,
The Upabrmbana of the Veda by the Itibāsa and the Purāņa is, to be frank, our time honoured way of interpreting the Veda. It has no doubt its own dangers and instances are not wanting where it has been used uncritically, overdone and misused. Consequently, it has received a set back and is more or less looked upon as an uncritical way of looking at the Veda,
The two traditions, the Rși tradition and the Suta tradition, for the sake of convenient description described as the hieratic and the secular traditions are really not so different as they are often regar led. Sanskrit literature is really interconnected. The obscure portions in the Veda are often best elucidated in the light from the Itibāsa and the Purāna and the converse is also true.
In my first lecture I have made an effort to indicate the utility as well as the necessity of this ‘upabțmhana' with the help of a few illustrations, In the second lecture I have discussed the much discussed Hymn of Mudgala (Rgveda X. 102) and have offered my own interpretation of this obscure yet interesting hymn. In my third lecture I have discussed the cetebrated Hymn of Agastya and Lopamudrā (Rgveda I. 179) and have offerred my own interpretation of this very interesting hymn. I have brought my discussion to a close by attempting to indicate how an obscure passage from the Itibāsa, the Mahabharata can be best understood in the light of the Rgveda.
I do hope and trust that this effort of mine will be appreciated by persons interested in the study of our culture and in the interpretation of the Veda. I carry very happy memories of these lectures when they were delivered at Ahmedabad in the month of November 1974,
These lectures are appearing in print and I am grateful to the authorities of the L. D. Institute for this kind gesture. My best thanks go to

Page #7

Pandit Dalsukhbhai Malvaniyaji who has been all these days a source of inspiration and encouragement to me. I know how much I owe to him.
T. G. Mainkar
Vijayādaśami 25th October 1974 Bombay.

Page #8

CONTENTS
Pages
I The Upabộmhaņa and the Rgveda Interpretation. II The Hymn of Mudgala Bhārmyaśva (Rv.X. 102) :
A Fresh Approach
III The Hymn of Agastya and Lopāmudrā (Rv. I. 179) :
A Fresh Approach

Page #9

Page #10

LECTURE I
THE UPABRMHAŅA AND THE RGVEDA INTERPRETATION
It is indeed very difficult for me to imagine anything about the reasons which made our esteemed friend Pandit Dalsukhbhaiji to think of extending an invitation to me to deliver three lectures under the auspicies of this Institute of Indology. Such an invitation from this Institute has always been regarded as a coveted honour and I am not at all formal when I say that I am extremely grateful to the authorities of this Institute for conferring this honour on me. Frankly I am only anxious as to how far will I be able to satisfy in some measure the expectations of the authorities. I saw the honour but not the responsibility. As the saying goes, people see the honey but not the fall, 'madhu pra paśyanti na tu prapātaḥ'. I accepted the invitation for I thought it would give me an opportunity to put before you some of my thoughts about the interpretation of the Rgveda.
The option for choosing my theme was very wide indeed, from the Vedic to the Classical Literature, the Jaina and the Buddhistic Literature as well. I have decided to speak about the Rgveda and its interpretation. This is a theme that is never exhausted. So much has been written about it and so much is being written about it; and yet the theme has not become stale nor has lost its charm. A very satisfactory solution is not yet in sight. I have selected today a specific problem, a problem which has been engaging me for quite a good time. The Rgveda has in it a few hynns, populary known as the Ākhyāna Hymns. It is in the context of these hymns that Oldenberg put forth his celebrated controversial ākhyāna theory. Apart from the question regarding their precise nature and purpose there is the prime question of their correct interpretation. These hymns are at several places 'unintelligible', 'difficult' and 'obscure'. To me these hymns are ballads of ancient times and have a manifold importance. In the first place, their literary form and the later Sanskrit Drapa appear to be closely related. Secondly they often throw light on contemporary history and social life. They could be described to be secular in character, though some scholars would be reluctant to read anything secular in the Rgveda. They seem to have some link with the ancient magic and the agricultural ritual. To me, these hymns are products of the Rșis properly but they deal with material that seems to be the special possession and field of activity of the Sutas. As such, these hymns have a vital relation with the Itibāsa and the Purāņa; hence the Mahābhārata, and the Rāmāyana and the Purāņas may be justly expected to throw some light on them. The obscurities that baffle us

Page #11

The Upabṛmhana and the Rgveda Interpretation
here may perhaps be solved in the light of these later Itihasa Purana works. Indeed, to interpret the Veda in the light of this Itihasa and the Puraṇa has been our traditional mode of dealing with the Veda for the saying goes, itihasapurāṇābhyāṁ vedam samupabṛmhayet'.
2
In the sequel I have tried to deal with two hymns from the Rgveda in the light of the material supplied by the Itihasa and Puranas. At the outset I have dealt with a few general illustrations that seem to support the thesis implied in this 'samupabṛmhana.' This is an effort to interpret the material of the Rşi tradition in the light of the Suta tradition. These two are two well established traditions that have recorded and transmitted the religious and the historical material to the later times. Such a checking up of one tradition by the other is useful as well as illuminating.
The Rsi and the Suta Tradition
In the matter of the creation and preservation of the early Sanskrit literature, two traditions have been at work, the Rşi tradition and the Suta tradition. It could be stated without any fear of being in any way guilty of serious inaccuracy that the Rsi tradition has been responsible for the Veda and the Suta tradition for the literature that is known as the Itihasa-Purana Literature. Both in the Rși and the Suta traditions we have generation of poets at work, to use the Rși phrases, the pratnah, the madhyamaḥ and the nutanaḥ. The Ṛsis give us and preserve the hieratic poetry while the Sutas give and preserve what Winternitz happily calls literary public property'. If religion and philosophy could be taken as the themes of the Rși poetry, it is to be seen that the Akhyānas, the Itihasas, the Puranas and the Gathās formed the content of the Suta poetry. If the Rsis sang in praise of the powers of Nature, the Sutas sang songs in praise of men. Beyond this it would be unwise, it appears to me, to draw a line of distinction between these two distinct traditions to be seen in Sanskrit literature.
For the two traditions actually meet and at times merge in one another. The Sūtas, to judge from the later literature, might have had a lower social station, they being primarily bards and being products of inter-caste marriages. They neither had the blue ksatriya blood in them nor the holy one of the Brahmanas. But to me this fact has no significance. It would be difficult to argue, in any case without much convincing evidence, that the Rşis were always of a pure descent. What is true of the great Vyasa and Valmiki could have been true of some of the early Rsis. Kavaṣa Ailuṣa and his likes could have come from a lower social plane. The Rṣihood was bestowed not by caste but by the fact of revelation.' A mantradrik' was a Rşi for as the saying goes rşiḥ darśanat'. Further the different 'Danastutis' of the Rgveda (I.126) and the Kuntapa Hymns of the Atharvaveda (XX.127

Page #12

The U pabrîhana and the Řgveda Interpretation
3
136) could with justification be looked upon as having relation with the kind poetry with which the Sülas are primarily associated. Nor could any line of distinction be drawn on account of learning and spiritual powers. At best what could be asserted is that the Sūtas were concerned with really popular poetry. I would with some liberty sum up my view in this matter by observing that the Rșis were interested in religion and philosophy while the sūtas were interested in man and history. If the Rșis sang of the great and significant happenings in Nature, the exploits of gods, the Sūtas sang of exploits of man and his powers and qualities. All this is very natural and right from the early times man has been interested in himself. What the myth is in respect of god, the legend is in respect of man. If on the plane of mythology the Rșis could be interested in the exploits of Indra and Varuna, the two divine kings, 'samrājau', the Sütas were intere. sted in their counterpart on the social plane, the King and therefore in the royal personalities. If on their plane the Rsis were interested in Agni and Brhaspati the divine priests, the Sūtas were interested in the priestly dignitories like Agastya, Visvämitra, Bhrgu, Angiras and so on. Man has been endowed with a fertile imagination and he sets himself busy about creating myths and legends about the powers of Nature that overawe him and about his own illustrious ancestors and members of the generations of earlier times. These two are as I see primary and co-existing tendencies in man and an effort to see any chronological order in them is futile. As a result songs in which gods were praised and also songs in which human heroes were praised came into existence in human society at the same time. It is therefore that the Rgveda contains many historical songs in which happenings are related with men. The Rgveda speaks of Sudāsa, Purūravas, Mudgala and of the happenings in their lives. This is matter which really is connected with what we call the Sūta tradition. It is not therefore surprising at all to see some material common to these two tradi. tions the Rşi and the Sūta of which we have been speaking.
The Purāṇas as known to us are perhaps the products of a much later date, perhaps of centuries after Christ but there could be no doubt about their having an antiquity that takes them back to the Vedic times. The Rgveda itself use the word Purāņa at III. 54.9. 'sa na puranam adhyemi'; III. 58. 6. 'purānamokaḥ sakhyam śivam vām'; X. 130.6. vaihe jate pitaro naḥ purāne'; but it is clear that at these places the word 'puräna' simply means old or ancient. The word 'purani' occurs in the context of the Uşas in "punahpunarjāyamānā purāni (I. 92. 10) and also in the context of a gātha, a popular verse, in 'tam gāthayā puranya punānam abhya. nūsata' (IX. 99. 4), This last mentioned use appears somewhat interesting to me since it indicates the existence of the 'gathas', popular Verses, in the times of the Soma Mandala, the Book IX of the Rgveda,

Page #13

The Upabrmhana and the Rgveda Interpretation
The Atharvaveda also indicates the existence of the Itihasa and the Purāṇa and what is perhaps more interesting is that it is seen tracing the origin of this literature from the Occhişta Brahman', the same source from which came out the Rik, the Yajus, the Sāman and the Cchandas. The Atharvaveda observes
'rcaḥ sāmānicchandāṁsi purāņam yajuşā saha /
ucchistajjajñire sarve divi devā divisritah / (XI. 7.24) At another place the Atharvaveda observes
sa brhatim diśam anuvyacalat / tam itihāsah ca purānain ca gāthaś ca nārāśamsãś canuvyacalan / itihāsasya ca sa vai puränasya ca gathānām ca narāśaisīnāṁ ca priyan dhama bhayati ya evan veda (XV. 1.6.10-12)
At yet another place the Atharvaveda (XI. 8, 7) describes a 'purāņavit as a person who has a thorough knowledge of the earth, prthvi, as it is and as it was in the past. All these references indicate that even in those very early times there was a distinct tradition of the secular literature and had its origin in the same society and perhaps had the same inspiration.
The Brāhmaṇas also reveal their acquaintance with this literature in an unambiguous manner. The Gopatha Brāhmaṇa (I. 10; 11. 10) speaks of the Itibāsa and the Purāna as being created along with the Vedas, the Kalpas, the Brāhmaṇas and the Upanişads and also adds that the [tibāsa was produced from the North, 'udicya itihāsavedam' and that the Purānas were produced from the lower and the upper quarters, the Dhruva and the Ürdhva quarters. The sata patha Brāhmaṇa too mentions this literature at several places (XI. 5. 6. 8; 7. 9; XIV. 6. 10. 6; XIII, 4. 3. 12-13) and it is seen prescribing the Itibāsa and the Purāņa as a part of curriculum, the
svād hyāya' and regards their study as being equivalent to the effort of satisfying the gods with milk, rice and flesh and compares this study to the offerings of honey to the gods. The Satapatha observes
'madhvāhutibhiḥ eva taddevān tarpayati / ya! itihasam purānam gatha
nārašamsih ilyaharah svadhyāyam adhite' / It further observes that this study of the Vedic literature including the Itibāsa and the Puräņa confers on the student absolute command over language, 'vācaiva samrag prajāyate'. According to this Brahmana, in a sacrifice on the eighth day, 'aştama ahan' the Itihasa is to be narrated, 'itihasam ācakşīta'. In this manner the Šatapatha Brāhmaṇa clearly indi. cates that the Itihāsa and the Purāņa had come to occupy a definite place in the curriculum of a Vedic student and also had been given a place in the current ritual.
The Aranyakas and the Upanisads also reveal similar knowledge and an attitude of recognition and reverence towards the Itihasa Purāna literature.

Page #14

The U pabrmhana and the Rgreda Interpretation
In the Taittiriya Aranyaka (11. 9), the Itihāsa and the Purana along with the Gathā Nārāśaṁsil are described as oblations to the gods, “ahutayah devānām abhavan'. The Brhadaranyaka Upanişad (II. 4. 11) regards the Itināsa and the Purana as the breathings forth of the Great Being, 'mahataḥ bhūtasya niņsvasitam' and the Cchāndogya Upanişad (VII. 1. 2) mentions the Itihāsa and the Purāņa as a literature being studied and regards the same as the fifth Veda, 'pañcamah vedah'. I think that this is enough evidence to indicate the exalted position that the Itihasa and the Purāņa had gained in the early Vedic times, since the two are described as the fifth Veda. Later literary tradition too has been equally significant and continuous in according to this literature the same exalted place for indeed, the Mahābhārata and the Puranas do become the Vedas for the masses. I would not like to say anything here about the glorious role that the Itibāsa and the Puräņa played in preserving, popularising and revolutionising Hinduism, for it is common knowledge,
The Itibāsa dealt with historical facts while the Purānas apparently dealt with geological and cosmological knowledge, to judge from the view available in the Atharvaveda about a ‘Purāņavit'. The Atharvaveda observes in this context
‘yeta asit bhümih purvā yamaddha taya id viduh / yo vai tām vidyat nämataḥ sa manyeta purāņavit l' (X1. 8.7)
The Itihäsa from its very clear etymological meaning and from the fact that it is always grouped with the Purana on the one hand and with the Gātha Nārašamsih on the other, appears to have been primarily knowledge of historical events and persons. That the luibāsa and the Purana formed - since they are always separately mentioned - a distinct tradition from that of the Sambitäs, the religious literature and the two were prominently secular in inspiration and character, is clear from all these references, is a view widely held but which I am not inclined to accept in its entirety. To me, the close association of the two traditions is of greater significance, These traditions, even for the sake of convenience are described as religious and sccular ones, did have even in those early times a common meeting ground and this meeting ground is the different Akhyünas that are to be met with in the Samhitas. These Akhyānas in the main refer to interest. ing and significant episodes in the lives of eminent sages and courageous heroes of the times of the Vedic poets as well as of the earlier periods. Being of a secular and historical nature, their proper place as I see, is in the Itihasa and the Purana and it is interesting to see some of the portions of these Äkhyānas have been preserved as narrated by the hieratic, one might say even aristocratic poets of the Rgveda. Some of these Äkhyānas are seen appearing in the Brahmaņa literature as well. In this manner we

Page #15

The Upabrṁhana and the Rgveda Interpretation
have some ancient tales that appear in the Rgveda, in the Brāhmaṇas and in the Itihasa and the Purana literature. The Vamsa and the Vamśānucarita have been important sections of the Purana along with the Sarga and the Pratisarga as the Atharvaveda view of a “purānavit might indicate.
I am not here saying anything, by way of either supporting or reject. ing the theory of the Akhyānas as put forth by Oldenberg and others. What I am maintaining is that many episodes were preserved in both the traditions, in the religious hieratic Rși tradition of the Rgveda and in the secular popular Sūta tradition of the Itibāsa and the Purana. I might illustrate the point further.
Thus we have the story. or the Akhyāna of Sunahsepa in the Rgveda and in the Aitareya Brahmana (Ch. 33). The Rgveda gives us the songs of the Rşi Sunahsepa (I. 24-30) being very fervent prayers addressed to Varuna, Agui, Savits, Indra, Aśvinau and Uşas. Further, in the Rgveda itself there is a reference in
'sunaścicche pam niditam sahasrāt
yūpādamuñcah aśamişla hi sah' / (V. 2.7) in the song by Kumāra Atreya which in its essence appears to confirm the account as given by the Aitareya Brahmana. This reference also suggests that the story is an earlier one since the Fifth Book where this reference occurs belongs to the earliest strata of the Rgveda according to the generally accepted view about the chronological order of the ten books of the Rgveda, The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa in its own account of this story gives 'gathās' in plenty while the Rgveda is seen giving the prayers of Sunahsepa in the mantra' form. Again, the Aitareya Brāhmana acquaints us with the sages Parvata and Narada and the conversation of these two with Hariscandra, the Ikşvaku King is shown as proceeding in the gathās'. We are told that 'sa ekaya prstah daśabhiḥ pratyuvāca'. This fact would indicate the existence of the gatha' literature of the Purāņa type in the times of the Brahmanas and also would point out to the fact of the narra. tion of such early tales in both the traditions, the hieratic and the popular ones. This story is further narrated, often with added points, in the Mārkandeya Purāna (Ch. 8), the Brahma Purāna (Ch. 104), the Devibhāgavata Purāna (Ch. VII. 13-27) and the śrīmadbhāgavata Purāņa (Ch, 9.7). I would like to add here that it is of considerable significance that the Srimadbhāgavata Purana has attempted to skillfully weave its narration round the Aitareya Brahmana text. Several words and tags of sentences from the Brābmaņa are seen fitted in the text of the Purāna. One may refer in this context to the following words and expressions like, 'putro me jāyatām; tena tvāṁ yaje; tatheti; anena māṁ yajasva; yada pasuh nirdaśah syāt atha sa medhyah; dantah jayeran alha sa medhyah, sannähiko yada rajan' woven

Page #16

The U pabrrhana and the Rgveda Interpretation
into the texture of the Puranic Anuştubha, halling directly from the Aitareya Brahmaņa. This clearly suggests that the Purāņa looks to the Brāh. maņa while narrating the story. This is really what it should be. I have already observed earlier that the Akhyānas form the common meeting ground of the Rși tradition and the Sūta tradition and here we find the two traditions consulting, depending upon and preserving the tales and their portions as known to them, the Purāna going to the length of combining the Vedic account in its own.
To support my thesis here, I may refer to another similar narrative that is common to the Veda and the Purāna, the celebrated account of Urvasi and Pururavas. The Rgveda (X. 95) narrates an interesting episode between Urvasi and Purūravas,the nymph and the king. This very episode is seen narrated in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, in the Mahābhārata, the Itibāsa and in the Purāņas. The Visņu Purāna (4.6), the Harivamsa (1.26) and the Srimadbhāgavata Parāna (9.14) narrate this episode confirming the Rgvedic account in its broad details and essentials. The Rgvedic hymn has received considerable attention of the scholars and by many it is regarded at many places as 'unintelligible', for it is difficult to identify the speakers and also to understand the exact background of certain statements in the dialouge that the hymn reports. The dialouge given is broken and therefore unintelligible. The satapatha Brāhmaṇa narrates this story in the context of the Gandharva Agni ritual, but adds information regarding the scene of the episode and uses some verses from the Rgveda itself. Here the ritualistic interest is obvious yet it is also clear that this account in a sense supplements the Rgvedic account. But I would like to make a pointed reference here to the Puranic account as available in the Śrimadbhāga. vata (9.14) narration. In this Purāņa, the main scene is placed by the river Sarasvati in the holy land of Kuruksetra and there is a reference to the five friends' pañca sakhih' of Urvasi, who are in all probability given in the Rgveda (X. 95. 6), as Su jūrni, Sreņi, Caranyu, Granthinı and Hrdecaksu. Sāyaṇācārya understands 'sumna api' also as a friend, but in view of the Bhāgavata reference and also in view of the meaning of the word 'api' I would render 'sumna-āpi' as 'gracious friends'. Giving the background of the dialogue between Urvasi and Pururavas, the Putāna continues the narration and in the process reveals its very close association with the Rgvedic account by incorporating words and expressions from the hymn. Thus we have “aho jāye tiştha ghore; vacāësi krnavāvahai; sudeho patati and khadanti enam vrkā' for 'sudevo prapatet, adha enam vīkā adyuh; ma mrtha, ma tva ad yuh rīkā; sakhyam na vai strāņām, vrkanām hrdayam yatha' directly hailing from the Rgvedic hymn. In the later part, the Purāna follows the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa as the references to the 'sthali, aśvattha, sami, the aranis and the final obtainment of gandharvahood by Purūravas would

Page #17

The Upabrihana and the Rgveda Inter pretation
clearly show. In this manner in this Urvasi Purūravas narration also there is an effort on the part of the Purāņa to weave its narration round the Vedic tale by utilising the Rgvedic expressions. The tale is clearly an ancient one and has exercised unique hold on the Indian mind. To me, the mingling of the Purāņa and the Rgveda is of greater significance for the Purāņa confirms the Rgvedic account and in a way in some measure is seen illuminating the same, supplying a few gaps in the Vedic narration.
In support of my contention regarding the inter-relation of the two traditions that I have been speaking of, I may refer to yet another narration. The Rgveda Hymn (X,109), the celebrated enigmatic 'brahmajāyā' hymn describes an outrage on the wife of Brāhmaṇa and her restoration back to her husband. Scholars who have made an effort to study this hymn have described it as 'almost unintelligible fragment and of compa. ratively late' origin. The Tāndya Brāhmaṇa, the Visnu Purana (IV. 6. 10-33) and the Srimadbbāgavata Purāņa (9. 14) also narrate this story and throw some light on the Rgvedic episode. Before going to the Purāņic account it would be worth our while to carefully note the few details supplied by the Rgvedic hymn itself. We are informed that King Soma restored the consort of a Brāhmana, (X. 109. 2),
'somo rājā prathamo brahmajāyam punaḥ prāyacchat ahşniyamānaḥ'. It was Brhaspati, a Brāhmana who received this wife back, (X. 109.5)
"tena jāyām anvayindat bịhaspatiḥ somena nītām juvham na devāl'. The gods and the sages, devāḥ, saptarṣayah', intervened and saw to it that the Ksatriya, the king, respected and obeyed the sacred law. The very elements seem to have risen in revolt and registered their loud protest against the outrage on a Brāhmaṇ performed by this act of kidnapp. ing his wife by the king, the protector of the land and law,
'te avadan prathamā brahmakilbişe akūpārah salilo mātariśvā' (X.109) Sayanācārya in his effort to explain this hymn has given in his gloss a legend, according to him, itibasa, which parrates that Juhu or Vāk, the wife of Bịhaspati who is identified with Brahmä here, had been by her husband deserted. The gods feeling concern over the matter held a coasultation between themselves as to the discovering adequate means of expiating his sin and restored her to him. Sāyaṇācārya observes,
"atra itihāsam acakşate / juhüriti vāk-nāma / sa hralmano jayā ca / hrhos pateh vūcas patitvāt bịhaspateh juhūmnāma bhāryā babhūva / kadacit asya kilbişamasyā daurbhāgyarūpena āsāṁcakre / ala eva sa enām paryat yākṣit, anantaram adityādayo devä mitho vicārya enam akilbiņām krtvā punaḥ
bịhas pataye prāduh iti / tadatra varnyate' It is clear that Sayanācārya is referring here to a story that is hardly to the point and therefore relevant. For the Roveda hymn is very clearly

Page #18

The UpalŢîhana and the Rgveda Interpretation
speaking of the restoration of a wife that was carried away by King Soma as the words 'somena nitām' qualifying the 'jaya' indicate. Brahaspati got back the wife taken by Soma, "tena jāyām anvavindat bịhas patiḥ somena nitām'. (5). There is no reference whatsoever to any abandonment on the part of the husband as Sāyaṇācārya suggests in his 'sa enām paryat yākṣit'. The word "ahțniyamanah' used in the context of King Soma in "punaḥ prāyacchat ahrniyamanah' (2) is really very significant. Griffith renders this phrase as 'without reluctance' which is not only colourless but also does not bring out the intended sense. Sayaņācārya's rendering 'papa-apagamanena-alajjamānah' is good only in the sense that it shows a better understanding of the sense in 'alajjamanaḥ'. To me, the pbrase eloquently conveys the insolence and the non-chalant character of the Kiog who had forcibly taken home the wife of a Brāhmaṇa. There is no indication of any sin committed by the wife for which she could have bcen abandoned. On the other hand we are told that at the time of returning to her husband, the wife did not wait for a messenger to accompany her and this fact, 10 me, shows her detention against her wishes, 'na dūtāya prahye tastha eşā'. (3) It is only thus that we can understand the full force of the later declaration that
bhimā jāyā brāhmaṇasya upanīta durdhām dadhati parame vyoman' which Griffith adequately renders as Dire is a Brahmana's wife led home by others : in the supremest heaven she plants confusion' or of the utterrance that the kings who kept their promises restored the wedded wife of a Brāhmaṇa', 'rājānaḥ satyam kínvānā brahmajāyāṁ punard aduh' (6). Thus it is the King Soma who is responsible for the kilbisz' which is the central point in the hymn. Brhaspati was the lawful husband of the woman and therefore when she was returned to him the hymn uses a beautiful simile in juvham na devāh' while it speaks of the restoration, Like the offerings to the gods, she goes to her lord. Sayaņācārya takes Jubū as the proper name of the wife who is involved here and makes her the speaker of the verse and creates sheer confusion. As a result, he is not of much help here.
It is interesting to note the Atharvaveda (V.17) confirming these threads of the Rgvedic song, for there also we get in verses 2 and 5
somo rajā prathamo brahmajāyām punah prājacchat ahıniyamanah' (2) and tena jāyām anvavindat brhaspatih somena nitām........
.....................15) the lines that occur in the Rgvedic hymn. But the Atharvaveda adds a significant detail in its 'yām āhuh tarakā esā vikesīti' (V. 17. 4). It is clear that to the Atharvaveda the name of the lady with fair tresses was 'Tāraka'.

Page #19

10
The Upabyrhana and the Rgveda Interpretation
Thus Sāyaṇācārya's view that the name of the lady was Juhū is not supported here by a source which obviously has a greater authenticity. The Tāņdyn Brāhmaṇa speaks of a "Saumāyana Budha' and this would suggest that from Soma, Tārakā had a son who was named as Budha.
The later ages unable to accept the violence implied in the story wove a myth round the names of Bșhaspati, Tärakā, Soma and Budha and distorted it completely. Astronomical interpretations were available and thus the story was lifted from its social plane to the mythological plane and given a garb of an allegory. But it is refreshing to find the Purānas throwing a welcome light on the episode. In the Bhāgavata Purana (9.14) we are told that King Soma had performed the Rajasüya sacrifice and was a powerful lord of the three worlds. Infatuated and drunk with power, he carried away Tārā, the wife of Brhaspati. A fierce struggle followed and she was restored to her husband. From Soma was born to her Budha who was the father of Purūravas. It is to be furthur remembered that the Śrīmadbbāgavata Purāņa narrates this account in a historical context when It is speaking of the Lunar Dynasty. From this confirmation of the broad elements of the episode it would appear that the Rgvedic hymn is a narra. tion of a historical event and the language of the hymn is indicative of the attitude of the contemporary society towards this royal crime. It is in this manner that the Purāņa helps us in understanding in some measure the unintelligible portions of the Rgveda, historical elements being a common field of activity of the Rși tradition and also of the Süla tradition.
What is true of historical material is also true of mythological material available in the two traditions wbich I am discussing here. In the Rgvedic songs on account of the metaphors and the symbols used the half-formed myths become all the more unintelligible. They appear in an exceedingly confused form and often without proper motivation with many vital links missing. At such places, the Itibāsa and the Puranas on account of their supplementary and confirmatory nature in respect of the ancient Vedic tales and myths come to our help and often render the material somewhat intelligible. In this context I may refer to a few illustrations.
The Rgvedic hymn of Nābhänediştha (X.6l) is regarded by many scholars as unintelligible. Ludwig describes the hymn as most difficult almost one of the hopeless portions of the Rgveda, Griffith is not able to see any intelligible connection between the various parts of the hymn. The hymn, on the basis of its material, divides itself into different parts as Ludwig bas shown : 1-4;5-9;10-13; and the last being from 14 onwards. I here refer to the second part of the hymn, verses 5-9 which deal with the episode of Brahma and his Daughter. The father, we are told conceived a passion for his daughter. It is clear that here we have the germ of the later story of Prajapati and his daughter, which perhaps are to be taken

Page #20

The Upabṛmhana and the Rgveda Interpretation
as representatives of the two principles of creation, the male and the female. The different words in these verses, 'duhitṛ, pita, yuvati, adhiskan' leave no doubt about the fact that here is a reference in an unmistakable manner to the passion of a father for his own virgin daughter, kana duhita'. The matter is described with the usual Rgvedic frankness. Now the problem is about the real meaning of this account. The other portions of the Rgveda, to me, indicate that the Rgvedic ethical and moral ideals would in all probability accept such an incest. In support of my this contention I might refer to the Yama-Yami Dialogue Hymn (X.10) and to the Brahmajāyā episode (X.109) which in some measure reflect the ideas of the Rgvedic times. This passion of Prajapati that is referred to here is confirmed by the Aitareya Brahmana (3.33) which observes 'prajapatiḥ vai svām duhitaram abhyadhyayat'. The Satapatha Brahmaṇa also observes 'prajāpatiḥ svām duhitaram abhidadhyau'. The Atharvaveda goes a step further when it observes (IX.10.12) 'pita duhituḥ garbham adhat' and the Tandya Brahmaṇa writes almost a gloss on this statement in its
"prajapatiḥ va idam asit | tasya vāk dvitiyā āsīt | tam mithunam samabhavat | sa garbham adhatta'.
11
Among the Puranas, the Srimadbhāgavata Purāṇa (3.12.28-33) narrates this very tale as an episode between Brahma and Sarasvati. It is also interesting to find Kumarilabhatta observing in his Trantravārttika (1.3.7) as follows:
'prajapatiḥ tavat prajāpālanādhikārāt āditya eva ucyate | sa ca arunodayavelāyām uṣasam udyan abhyait | sa ca tadagamanāt eva upajāyate iti tadduhitṛtvena vyapadisyate | tasyam ca aruṇakiraṇākhyabijanikṣepāt stripurusayogavat upacaraḥ' |
In this context one's attention may be drawn to the fact that already in the Vedic literature itself we get 'yat prajapatiḥ tan manah' in the Jaimini Upanisad (1.33.2) and 'vāk vai sarasvati' in the Kaușitaki (5.1). From this it would appear that when the Purana speaks of Brahma and Sarasvati, it is following a Vedic tradition known to it. But what is of importance is the addition made by the Purana. It informs us that Prajapati was censured by his sons and feeling abashed he did abondan his body, 'prajapatiḥ tanvam tatyāja vrīḍitaḥ tadā' and as a result darkness surrounded the quarters, tām diso jagṛhuḥ ghorām nihāram yadviduḥ tamaḥ'. This description confirms the 'Surya-Usas' interpretation of the original Rgvedic account. The Vedic poets like Dirghatamas Mamateya (1.164) and Nabhānediştha (X.61) and many others are seen indulging in a free use of metaphorical and symbolic language, as a result of which we get many unintelligible passages. In such cases the help offered by the Itihasa Puraṇa tradition is often found to be of much use and illuminating. The Suta tradition has not gone astray here for we find the Aitareya Brahmana itself (3.3.3) asserting in this context 'prajāpatiḥ vai svām duhitaram abhyadhāvat, divamiti anye

Page #21

The Upabṛmhana and the Rgveda Interpretation
ahuḥ uşasamiti anye'. Sāyaṇācārya also keeps this way of interpretation in his mind while commenting on these verses (X.61.5-9), for almost uniformly he is seen rendering words like 'yuvati,duhitṛ' by 'divam or uşasam'. It would be worth while to arrive at the interpretations of such half formed and illexpressed myths especially when they are likely to shed some light on the ethics and morals of a given society.
12
I may refer here to yet another case in support of my present view about the help offered by the Itihasa and the Purana for a proper understanding of the Rgvedic myths by providing the missing links. The Rgveda at several places (U.11.19;X.8.8;X.99.6) speaks of the destruction of a threeheaded dragon by name Viśvarupa and who was the son of Tvaṣṭra, since he is called Visvarupa Tvaştra. According to the Rgveda, Viśvarupa had imprisoned the cows belonging to Trita who was an ally and a protege of Indra. Viśvarupa, also called Triśiras, obviously because of his three-heads, it appears was a sworn enemy of Trita, who according to Sayaṇācārya was a rși, a sage. Griffith regards the reference in (II.11.19)
'sanema ye ta ütibhiḥ taranto visvaḥ spṛdha aryeṇa dasyun |
asmabhyam tat tväṣṭram visvarüpam arandhayaḥ sakhyasya tritaya ||' as very obscure observing 'it is difficult to make anything intelligible of this stanza'. At another place (X.8.8) it is said
'trisirṣāṇam saptaraśmim jaghanvān tväṣṭrasya cinniḥ sasṛje trito gall At yet another place (X.99.6), this very exploit is spoken of and we are informed that Viśvarupa had six eyes, 'salakṣam trisirṣāṇam damanyat'. Bergaigne (La Religion Vedique II 329-330) and Muir (O.S. Texts V.229-23) have tried to throw light on this legend. The Satapatha Brahmana (1.2.3.2; 1.6.3.2-5) and the Tandya Brahmana (17.5.1) also narrate this story and add a few details. According to the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, Viśvarupa was drinking wine with one of his mouths, Soma with another and Anna with the third. Indra treating him as his enemy cut off his heads. In these Vedic accounts there is no reason given accounting for this enemity between Indra and Tvaṣṭra Viśvarupa. The only reason that one can think of is the Vedic account that Viśvarupa had wrongly confined the cows of Trita who was the friend of Indra and it is for this wrong to a friend of his, that made Indra kill him. The Śrimadbhagavata Purana (6.6.44-55;6.9.1-7) narrates this very story of Viśvarupa Tvāṣṭra. The Purāņa informs us that Viśvarūpa was the son of Tvastra who had married Racana, a Daitya lady:
'tvaştuḥ dailyänujā bharya racanā nāma kanyaka | sanniveśaḥ tayoh jojñe viśvarupasca viryavan ||'. The Purana confirms the Satapatha Brahmaṇa account in which we informed that Viśvarupa has three heads, 'trini siramsi' and that these mouths were the somapitha, surāpītha and annāda'. But of greater interest is the
are

Page #22

The Upabrṁhana and the Rgveda Interpretation
13
information that as a priest Visvarūpa tried to deceive the gods by offering their share in a sacrifice secretly to the asuras due to his natural love for the relatives and kin of his mother, mālssnehavasónugah'. One may think that the Rgvedic motive is the usual stealing of the cows, natural for a pastoral society while the motive given here is a frankly ritualistic and therefore perhaps a creation of priestly imagination. But then it is to be remembered that it is not given in the Brāhmaṇas where the priestly imagination could be said to have been at work. The motive is given in the Sūta tradition the Parāņa. Many times the Vedic accounts appear as unintelligible on account of such links missing and the Puräņas often supply these very links.
In this discussion I really cannot resist the temptation of refering to yet another interesting case, to the celebrated legend of Indra and Ahalyā. Indra is often described as 'ahalyāyai jārah' as can be seen from the satapatha Brāhmana (3.3.4.18), the Taittiriya Brābmana (1.12.4), the sadvimśa Brāhmana (1.1), the Latyāyaṇa Srautasūtra (1.3). In the Atharvaveda (XI.2.17) Indra is described as a person with a thousand eyes, 'sahasrakşa' andtherefore, all-sceing, 'atipaśyam purastāt'. In the Rgveda this concept in respect of Indra is not seen but we find Agni described as “uşasam jarah (VII, 9.1) and also as suasāram jāro abhyeti paścāt' (X.3.3). It is clear that here Agni is regarded as the lover of Uşas because of their constant association and presence together. The fact that the Uşas appears at first on the horizon and then is Agni enkindled is taken to represent Agni's following the Uşas as a lover. The idea of their simultaneous existence and constant companionship between the two, Uşas and Agni, also gives rise to the other notion of the relation of a sister and a brother between the two and therefore we get 'svasāram järo abhyeti paścāt' where clearly we have an interesting blend of these two different relations. We have a similar notion in the context of Püşan in the Rgveda (VI. 55. 4-5) where Pūsan is spoken of as the lover of his sister, 'svasuh yo jāra ucyate' and in the immediatly following verse he is spoken of as a suitor of his mother, 'mātuh didhisum abravam svasurjāraḥ śrnotu nah/ bhrātā indrasya sakha mama.' Here obviously the sister is the Uşas and in 'nātuh didhişum' the mother is the Night. Sāyaṇācārya's rendering of 'mātuh didhişum' as 'ratreh patim' is quite safe and the suggestion of some Western scholars, particularly Griffith, that here probably Süryā is meant deserves no consideration. Firstly, Sūryā has nowhere in the Rgveda been spoken of as the mother of Pūşan and secondly there is no natural phenomenon that would give rise and support such a notion. It is, to me it appears, very difficult to accept the suggestion that in the Rgveda in 'yam devāso adaduḥ sāryāyai kāmena kstam tayasam svañcam' (VI. 58.4) we have a description of the birth and not of a marriage. It is indeed the marriage of Puşan and Sūryā that is spoken

Page #23

14
The Upabrṁhana and the Rgveda Interpretation
of here. Sūryā cannot be the spouse as well as the mother of Pusan. Pūsan is undoubtedly spoken of as the suitor of his mother in 'matuh didhişu' but the mother here is the Night. Here also we have that familiar intermingling of two different notions based on the constant association of the Night and Puşan and the phenomenon of the Pūşan apparently coming out of the Night. Pūşan is further brother of Indra. Indra is spoken of as a lover,
jāraḥ' of the waters in the Rgveda itself, (X.111.10). It would be worth our while to remember in this context the observation of the Satapatha Brāhmana (IV. 5.9.4) that Indra is the Sun, ya eşa süryah tapati, eşa u eva indrah'. If all these scattered threads are put together it should not be very difficult for us to understand the rise of the idea of Indra as the lover Abalvā, ahalyāyai jārah'. Here too, the constant association of the Sun and the Night could have been responsible for this notion. It would there. fore appear that in all probability there is behind the 'ahal yayai jarah' concept, the natural phenomenon of the Sun and the Night. It would be interesting to see how the Ramayana which could be very well grouped with the Itihasa and the Purana adds a few significant details in this context. The Rāmāyaṇa (Balakānda 49) speaks of the curse of Gotama on account of which Indra loses his vigour. We are told that with a view to restoring this lost vigour, the gods and the sages transferred the ‘vrşana' of a ram, mesa' to Indra. In this idea of restoration of vigour to Indra is possibly to be seen the idea of the rejuvenation of the faded weak Sun. It is indeed difficult to understand why should Indra say that in invoking the wrath of Gotama he has done a service to the gods. Indra is made to say
"kurvatā tapaso vighnam gautamasya mahātmanah /
krod ham ut padya maya surakāryam idam kặtam' || (49.2) Gotama, a sage, could not have threatened the peace of the heavens by his penance. One may here refer to the views about this puzzling myth, held by Yaska and Kumārila, who both see in the myth a reference to the rela. tion between the Night who is Ahalyā, 'ahani liyale ili ahalya' and the Sun for to them Indra is the Sun here. The Cyavana story is in all probability a similar myth about the rejuvenation of the Sun, To the Vedic myth of ‘ahal yayai jaraḥ' the Ramayana is seen here supplying the significant link of rejuvenation. Max Muller's Solar approach to each and every myth may be an overdoing of a theory but when there is a continuous tradition from the Vedic times supporting such an interpretation, its rejection should be preceeded by a good deal of careful thought,
I have been speaking about the 'obscure', 'unintelligible' and difficult portions in the Rgveda. I may here refer to the episode of Kutsa Arjuneya (IV.16) only to illustrate as to how the mixing up of the mythological and the historical elements ultimately results in creating conceptual fogs for us. Kutsa Arjuneya is a celebrated and renowned personality of the early

Page #24

The Upatīntara ord i
Rancida Inta pretotiin
15
Rgvedic phase, sirce Vamadeva refers to him in his 'cham kutsem õrjureyim nyrnje' (IV.26.1). He is a friend of Indra and as such referred to at several places. (1.33.14;51.7 and so on.) We have also a seer Kutsa who has many Suktas to his credit. (1.94-98;101-104;106-115;). It would be proper to regard these two Kutsas as distinct personalities, Kutsa the son of Arjuni and friend of Indra and Kutsa, the seer of the Sūktas. Kutsa the hero of wars, is seen as engaged in two struggles, one against suşna and in which he was helped by Indra and the other against Suśravas and Tūrvayāna, in which he was not favoured by Indra and was therefore defeated. (1.53.10). I would not regard him to be of the 'anti-Indra cult' on this count. At one place (IV.16) while speaking of this protection of Kutsa by Indra the Rgveda informs us thus:
'a dasyughna manasa yahyastam bhuvatte kutsah sakhye nikāmah |
sve yonau nişadatam sarūpā vi vām cikitsad;taciddha näri' // (IV. 16) Whose is the 'asta' home refered to here? Who is this 'rtacit nārt' referred to in the second line ? Kutsa was very much interested in the friendship of Indra, 'te sakhye nikamak' and it is likely that indra after helping his friend to victory might have gone to his home. In that case the 'asta' is of Kutsa and then naturally the 'rtacit nāri' is his righteous wife. Kutsa inspired by and helped by Indra could have returned after the victory almost Indra-like and so his wife was not in a position to recognise bim. She was in doubt about knowing the two similar forms, 'sarūpā'. Sāyana narrates here an 'akhyāyika' according to which Kutsa was the son of Ruru, a king, and was a close friend of Indra. Indra after leading his friend to victory, took him to his place and the two had pretty similar forms so that Saci, the wife of Indra could not distinguish between the two. The Rgveda does speak of the friends of the gods visiting their abodes, for we find Vasistha also speaking of his visit to Varuna's place. But it is, to my mind relevant in this context to remember that it is Indra who is said to move about by assuming different forms, 'indro māyābhih pururūpa Iyate'. Indra moved in the same chariot with Kutsa for we have 'yāsi kutsena sarat ham avasyuh (11). Later myth informs us of Indra visi. ting Gotama's place in an effort to seduce Ahalyā but no such purpose could be detected here. Indra has helped Kutsa by removing the wheel of the Sun, “sūrascakram vịhatāt abhike' (12). What this in fact means is difficult to imagine but it could mean the lengthening of the day so that Kutsa could win and vanquish his enemies. The Rgvedic poets and warriors speak of their visions of their deties and speak in a glowing manner of their friendships and their company. One cannot think of images of these gods and one is naturally led to think of mentally conjured up visi. ons and derived inspiration. In the present context Kutsa having fought Indra-like, being inspired by Indra, must have felt the presence of Indra

Page #25

16
The Upabținhana and the Rgveda Interpretation
and must have returned home Indra-like, sarūpa. His wife therefore could pot recognise him regarding him a veritable Indra. Griffith, Wilson and others do not offer much help. We have to accept here either a mythclogical account or a purely historical episode imaginatively narrated. It is this confusing mix up of mythology and history that is responsible for many a obscurities in the Rgveda.
The Purāṇas also throw some light on the interpretation of a few Vedic 'mantras'. They often weave their poetry by using Vedic phraseology and also pick up concepts from celebrated Vedic passages. One may refer by way of illustrations to the Puruşa Hymn (Rgveda X. 90 ), the Nāsadiya Hymn (X.122) and the Hiranyagarbha Hymn (X.121) which figure now and then in the philosophical discussions in the Purānas and the Itihasa, the Mahabhārata. The celebrated Vedic verse 'catvāri šřnga trayo'sya padah (IV.58.3) is interpreted by the Skanda Purāņa (Kashi Khanda. 73.93-96) as glorifying Śiva while the Srimadbhagavata (8.16. 31) offers a ritualitistic interpretation by understanding it as glorifying the sacrifice. It is very well known that Patañjali reads here a glorification of the “sabda' while in the view of Jaimini, the 'mantra' is in praise of the sacrifice, i he Yajña. Rājasekhara is seen here reading a reference to the Kāryapuruşa. The Srimadbhāgavata Purana (11.11. 6-7) offers a fine and easy exposition of the celebrated Vedic mantra 'dva su parna sayujā sakhaya' (1.164. 20). It is in this manner that we can derive help for an understanding of a few Rgvedic mantras. As a result the Rgveda also helps us in understanding the obscure passages in the Itibāsa and the Purāņa.
My argument here all through has been that the Purānas and the Itibāsa should be used for help when faced with a problem of an interpretation of a Rgvedic hymo, or of a Vedic myth, or of a Vedic concept. This argument, traditionally known as 'upabrmhana' has been very popular with the ancient commentators and we find an excellent and easy exposition of this time-honoured principle in Rāmānu ja when he engages himself in the refutation of the interpretations of the Upanisadic texts by the Advaita Vedantins. In his comments Rāmänuja observes
'itihāsapurāņābhyām vedam samu pabțmhayet /
bibheti al paśrutāt vedah mānayam pratarisyati' I l (Mbh. 1.1.273) iti śāstrena arthas ya itihosa puranabl vām u pabrrhanam kāryam iti jñāyate | and he further explains what this elucidation, upabộmhana, is.
"upabrîhanam nāma viditasakalavedatadarthānām svayogamahimā-saksātkrtavedatattvārthanam vāk yaih sva-avagat avedavāk yärthavyaktikaronim / sakalasäkhänugatasya vākyärthasya al pabhāgasravanāt duravagamatvena, tena vina niscaya-ayogāt, upabỊmhanam hi kāryam eva'l (Rāmānujabhasya on BS. 1.1.1. para 54)

Page #26

The Upabīmhana and the Rgveda Interpretation
17
Rāmānuja has indeed brought out excellently the essentials and the sheer necessity of this traditional and sound principle of consulting the Itibāsa and the Purāna for proper understanding of the Vedic passages that appear as ‘unintelligible' or 'hopeless', or difficult and defy us. The procedure implied in this "upabrmhana' is useful since the entire literature seems to present a continuous tradition. This is not to deny the presence of the additions and the changes, the elaborations and the dramatisations of the Vedic accounts carried out by the later generations. Granting all this, this literature still remains a good source of help. Rgveda in terms of Rgveda, Rgveda in terms of Paņini, Rgveda in terms of the Avesta are all quite good so far as they go, but then it is to be remembered that the traditional cry for 'u pabr mhana' also has its rightful place by the side of these modern principles.
In what follows I have selected two hymns from the Rgveda, the Hymn of Agastya and Lopamudrā(l. 179) and the Hymn of Mudgala(X, 102) and the Asvin-Stuti from the Itibāsa, the Mababhārat (Adiparva. Pauşya III) for my study. I have made an attempt to have a fresh look at these hymns which have been regarded as 'difficult'. The interpretations offered so far have not satisfied me and I am also conscious that even my interpretations will not appear satisfactory to many. This is bound to be and is as it should be. Truth is never in a hurry and in such inquiries no word is ever final. The Rgveda is a constant challenge to its students and is never exbausted. My aim in this first lecture was to argue for the utility and justification of the course that I intend to follow. All the while, I have been arguing, with illustrations as I could draw upon, the case for the utility and authority of the Itihasa and the Purāņa in the matter of the Vedic interpretation

Page #27

LECTURE II
THE HYMN OF MUDGALA BHĀRMYAŚVA (X 102)
A FRESH APPROACH
The Hymn of Mudgala Bhārmyasva (X.102) is a very baffling hymn and at the same time very interesting one. As it is, the Hymn appears to be fragmentary and Griffith thinks it to be impossible to interpret It fully and satisfactorily'. Sāyaṇa offers somewhat limited help for a satisfactory understanding of the Hymn and therefore Wilson who is seen following Sāyaṇa is also not of much significant use. Ludwig in his effort to understand the hymn in a cogent manner is forced to have a recourse to many conjectures. Bloomfield, Geldner, Pischel, Velankar and Dange have also rendered this Hymn, each in his own way. Not being completely satisfied with any of these interpretations though these interpretations are undoub. tedly from very able and competant hands I have here undertaken a study of this very Hymn with a view to offer another interpretation,
The Hymn clearly centres round an incident in which a certain Mudgala and Mudgalānı are involved. Who are these two personalities ? According to Velankar, this is a Brābmin couple while according to Bloomfield, Geldner and others they are a 'sage and his wife'. To Dange, however, Mudgala and Mudgalāoi are not proper nouns and these two are according to him 'a village head-man and his wife' To Dange it appears improbable that sage Mudgala has anything to do with this hymn and he remarks that it is pertinent to note that Mudgalāni does not come elsewhere as the wife of Mudgala and in the Mabābhārata there is only a passing reference to Mudgala and his wife Indrasenā and not Mudgalāni. He explains away this reference to the obscure tradition of the Vedic hymn and he does not consider that there is historical fact behind it.
There is however evidence to show that Mudgala Bhārmyaśva was a king and Mudgalānī wa his wife. Mudgala belonged to the clan of the Trtsus and an account of this particular dynasty is available in the Harivamsa (32.63-80) and this account is supported by an account available in several Purānas; thus the Vayu Purana (99.194-210), the Matsya Purana (50.1-16). the Brahma Purāņa (13.93-101), the Vişnu Purāņa (IV.19.56-72), the Agni Purāņa ( 278.18-24 ), the Garuda Purāņa (I. 140.17-24 ), and the Bhagavata Purāna (IX.19.56-72). It will appear that this traditional account upto King Mudgala Bbārmyašva is cogently preserved and confusion appears to enter in the account of the princes after Mudgala. Mudgala had two sons in Brahmiştha and Vadhryasva. The Mahabharata (111,113.23-24) informs us

Page #28

The Hymn of Mudgala Bharmyasva (X. 102)
19
that Mudgala's wife was Indrasena and she was an illustrious lady as would appear from her being grouped with other celebrated ladies. The Epic goes on:
'nalasya vai damayanti yathā abhūt yatha sacī vajrad harasya caiva / nārāyani cendrasenā babhūva vaśyā nityam mudgalasya ajāmidha //
This name Indrasenā appears in the Hymn of Mudgala also in such a manner as to suggest it being Mudgalāni's name. The reference is
'rathirabhünmud galāni gavistau bhare kstam vyacedindrasenā / 2.cd.
The grammatical form mud galant' clearly expresses the relation of the woman with Mudgala while Indrasenā being a word again grammatically co-ordinated with mud galānī' would appear to be the proper name of the lady in question. Further Mudgala's father in the Purāņic accounts is Bbārmyaśva, a fact that seems to be confirmed in the Rg-vedic name of the seer of this hymn which is given as 'mudgalo bhārmyaśvaḥ'. The Purāņas seem to create some confusion in the accounts by mixing up the two peoples, the Tștsus and the Pāñcālas, but it is to be remembered that there is a fair agreement in their accounts upto Mudgala Bhārmyasva. The family tree would indicate that this king Mudgala and Indrasena flourished three or four generations prior to Sudāsa Paijavana who is the central figure in the Dasarājña War. The Rgveda as it is, is largely of the times of Sudāsa Paijavana and it is therefore perfectly natural and understandable if an event of three to four generations earlier involving Mudgala and his wife is regarded as an 'itihāsa-ākhyāna' and becomes a proper subject for a ballad. Mr. Jambunatham (SP. 25. AIOC 1969. p. 13) regards Mudgala to be a typical Vedic şşi, a sage, who worshipped no other god than his mace. Mudgala Bhārmyaśva was a king undoubtedly and yet he was regarded as a sage or a 'mantradīk' quite in keeping with the Vedic tradition for there are like Devāpi and others who are ksatriya' seers. The Vedic hymn of Mudgala makes repeated references to Indra seeking his protection in 'indro avatu' (1.b), 'antaryaccha vajram indra abhidāsatah (3.ab) 'indra udavat patim' (7.c) and finally, there is the eulogy of Indra in 'tvam visvasya jagataḥ cakşu indra' (12) and therefore it would be difficult to accept the view of Mr. Jambunathan that the sage Mudgala did not worship any other god than his mace. Similarly with the Purāņic tradition so uniformly asserting the royalty of the sage Mudgala, it would be difficult to agree with Dange that he is only a representative of a village headman and the lady is bis wise the hymn furnishing no indication whatsoever in this regard. If at all an indication is available in the hymn itself it points to the royalty of Mudgala. In 'parivýkteva pati. vid yam anat (11) is an indication that Mudalāni was like a parivȚkta, a neglected avoided wife and this reference would point to Mudgala's having

Page #29

The Hymn of Mudgala Bharmyaśva (X. 102)
many wives among whom Indrasenā had an inferior status, a circumstance that would be more probable in a royal house than in a hermitage, though of course we have sages having more than one wives. The War, the Chariot, the Driver, Wives, Cattle-wealth - all these items suggest a possibility of Mudgala being a King rather than rși. He becomes a sage by virtue of bis having seen a hymn, having been a mantrad?k'. In view of this indications from the hymn and also in view of the uniform Purānic tradition I think it would better accord with facts if Mudgala and his wife Mudgalāni Indrasenā are regarded as a King and his wife, So we are dealing here with a royal couple and not with a Brahmin couple as Velankar suggests, nor with a sage with Mace as his only god as Jambunathan thinks or with a village headman and his wife as Dange suggests.
Geldner has interesting suggestions regarding this couple. He is of the view that Mudgala was an old person, an impotent as the word ‘vad hri'(12) suggests. Mudgalādi was young and fair wife of this old man. Geldner further thinks that humourous as well as biting fun has been made of this odd but victorious couple by the spectators of the race in 'eşaisya cidrathya jayema pipyāna kucakreņa sincan' (11) in which they express their desire to have a ride with the fair and young driver Mudgalādi. Ludwig takes Mudgala to be a King and the fair Mudgalān; to be a parivěkta wife, a neglected wife, who made amends for her sterility by driving her husband's chariot to victory in a battle and this trlumph of hers restored her to a honourable place among the wives of the King, To Bloomfield, Mudgalānı as Indrasena represents the female forces of Indra while the Mace represents the 'vajra,' the male forces of Indra. When these two forces of Indra, the male and the female as embodied in the Mace, the Vajra and Mudgalāni the Senā, are combined they secure victory in war for Mudgala. Pargiter feels that an actual historical incident is here involved (JRAS. 1910. p. 1328) and connects this Mudgala with the Puränic Mudgala. Keith is not inclined to accept any history in this ballad. Dange thinks that here is ploughing ritual involved and there is no reference to any historical incident, whether a war or a race. Such are the different approaches made by scholars towards this hymn in their efforts to solve its riddle.
Thus it will be seen that there are three different contexts proposed for this hymn by these scholars, Griffith, Bloomfield, Ludwig suggest War as the central incident; Geldner, Velankar think it to be a Race while Dange takes it to be a Ploughing Ritual. It would be worth our while to examine these views in the light of the internal evidence available from the hymn itself. What does the hymn tell us ?
In the hymn there is a reference to a chariot as the word 'ratha' (1) shows. Further Indra's protection is invoked in a famous (leading to fame)

Page #30

Thc Hymn of Mudgala Bharmyaśva (X. 102)
'śravāyya' contest, ‘aji' at the very outset. Mudgalani became the driver, 'rathi,' conquered a thousand, 'ajayat sahasram' and she did collect the booty, bhare krtam vyacet indrasena' (2). Again, Indra is invoked and is requested to hurl his weapon at the enemies who seek to kill and the dangerous weapon whether of an Arya or a Dasa is desired to be warded off (3). In this contest, āji, Mudgala has won a thousand cows, 'sahasram gavām pradhane jigaya' (5). The driver Mudgalāni had her status increased on account of this victory, parivykteva pativid yamanat pipyana' (11). Finally there is the expression of the gratitude on the part of the victors whom Indra had favoured and whose greatness therefore they extol (12). The victory belonged to Mudgala is asserted twice as if to emphasise the fact; for we get, 'sahasram gavām mudgalaḥ pradhane jigāya' (5) and again jigāya satavat sahasram gavām mud galah planāj yeşu' (9). Similarly the fact of Mudgalāji being the driver is asserted twice, in "rathirabhūt mudgalāni' (2) and in 'sārathirasya keśī and this is implied in a third somewhat clever suggestion in fpcchanti sma nişpado mud galānīm' (6). The contest in which Mudgala and Mudgalādi participate is an 'aji' (1) a 'gavişti' (2) a 'pradhana' (5). There are three elements that seem to have brought success to Mudgala; for while speaking about the bull, it is said 'yena mudgalah jigāya' (5), so also while speaking of the ‘drughana''the Wooden Block or Mace' it is said that it was the associate of the bull, 'vrşabhasya yunjam' and through it Mudgala won the thousand, syena jigāya sahasram' (9). Mudgalāoi's driving too has been responsible in securing this victory and lastly there is the protection offered by Indra in response to the prayer in ‘ratham indro 'valu' and 'puruhūta no 'va' (1). At this contest the presence of murderous enemies, jighāmsatah abhidasatah and of the weapons of 'dasa' and an arya' is referred to. (3), the opponent is referred to as being attacked by the bull in ‘kūtam sma třmhat abhimātim eti' (4). Other graphic details supplied are that when Mudgalādi drove the chariot and won a thousand, the wind made her garment flow, ‘uta sma vāto vahati vaso asyah' (2); the bull had drunk a lake of water "udno hrdam apibat' (4) and with his shattering horn he attacked the opponent, kütam sma trịhat abhimatim eti' (4). This bull was a very vigorous and strong one, "muşkabharah' and during the contest they made the bull thunder and urinate, 'nyakrandayan amehayan vşşabham' (5). As the buil ran, the dung fell on the person of the driver, the lady Mudgalānī, ‘ycchanti sma nişpado mud galanim (6). The bull was, it appears, protected by Indra, 'indraudavat patim aghnyanām (8) and so it worked a wonder and seeing the cows gained strength (8). The Mace 'drughana' was the bull's companion at the chariot at the other side ‘drughanam vīşabhasya yuñjam' and this was allowed to lie on the battle-field, kaşthayah madhye śayānam', 9). Neither was grass for water taken to some one who carried

Page #31

22
The Hymn of Mudgala Bhārmyaśva (X. 102)
the yoke, 'nāsmai trnam nodakam abharantyuttaro dhuro vahati pradediśat'(10). Indra has protected the chariot (1) given protection to the bull and given victory to a weak friend. (7, 12).
It really needs no argument to prove that all this is war imagery and therefore it is a war that appears to be the central event. In spite of this, one may justifiably say, overwhelming clear internal evidence, Dange observes that it can be said with certainty that there is no indication of a race or a battle in it, though the words like aji' and 'abhimati' are apt to lead one to this hypothesis'. He is of the view that the words 'bhare kstam'which obviously support the battle or the face-theory are not to be taken in too literal sense. To him it appears that the words are agha ko nu ittha dadarśa' (10) are difficult to be understood in the context of a battle. In 'yam yuñjanti tamya stha payanti,' according to him, the race or the battle is belpless. It is amusing to see him observe again - after having denied with certainty the existence of any indication of a race or battle 'we have in tbis hymn a figurative use of the race or the battle' and further in all probability, we have here a traditional ritual cuched in the terminology of battle'. On the strength of the word 'mithūkȚtam' in the context of 'ratham' (1) he takes the chariot to be a mock one, a procedure in which he is supported by Velaokar and Geldner, and further takes the enemies, the jigamsat abhidasa, aryasya va dasasya vadha(3) abhimoti(4) as 'imagi. nary opponents and in spite of the clear past tense in 'ajayat sahasram',
jigaya sahasram (2, 5, 9), he observes that this fight is a mock one, not for anything lost, but for avoiding a possible loss. To him the words dhanabhakşa'(1) and 'gavişti' (2) indicate an agricultural or a pastoral ritual.
Now what are the details or indications of this ‘agricultural or pastoral ritual' in the hymn itself ? Io the innocent description of the fair driver 'uta sma vato vahati väso asyaḥ' Dange sees a suggestion of her being 'naked' obviously because for a rain ritual a naked woman plays some part amongst the Kocha women or in South India and the Behirs. Mudgalāoi who is Indrasena, the same as Indrāni and represents the Earth and is symbolically the wife of lodra that would bring rain. So Mudgalani is the field-wife of Indra. Next, the 'kūta' refers to the plough-share that digs in the ground and in the process removes the barrenness abhimati' connected with the soil. The aji' is not a battlefield but is the ordinary field and the thundering and the urinating of the bull (5) is a «fertility-charm based on sympathetic action to cause rain. To him it appears that the 'gah paspasanah are at the other end of the field waiting to be 'touched' by the bull for their fecundation. The drughana' is cast at the other end is 'an unholy thing.' Mudgala and Mudgalāni are not be taken as individuals with proper nouns but are the village-head and his wife who might first plough the

Page #32

The Hymn of Mudgala Bharmyaśva (X, 102)
field ritually to mark the beginning of the ploughing season. This ritual ended with an invocation to Indra for success in agriculture. The language used for the ritual is that of fight which goes well with the style of the Rgveda which uses the battle-garb even to describe a sacrifice.
This 'Ritual theory' virtually makes the hymn stand on its head a complete inversion of the material supplied by it. The poetic observation in 'uta sma vāto vahati vaso asyaḥ' is made to suggest that Mudgalant is quasi-naked. The Drughana about which it is said that 'yena jigāya satavat sahasram gavam' is made to represent the evil which is discarded at the other end of the field. Mudgala and his wife Mudgalāni are made the village headman and his wife and further on the strength of the word Indrasenā she is regarded as Indra's wife and represent Earth. The thousand COWS that are 'won' by Mudgala for himself and his wife are for the common weal, 'bahave janaya' and are won through the normal process of cattlerearing. Dange practically refutes his own view when he points out that "this hymn is not utilised for the ploughing-ritual as seen from the Sutra literature, the hymn utilised being RV. IV. 57. In spite of this absence in the later ritual, he asserts that we have here a ritual of agriculture which long back became obscure in the Vedic tradition which had in the long past adapted it from the popular tradition of Folks. It really becomes difficult to follow the reasoning here for whatever has been preserved in the popular practices of the Behirs, in South India, the modern Bendur, practices in Balaghat region, could have been very well prserved by a peɔple who are very zealous about a tradition, who are preeminently given to agriculture and cattle and who have an especial skill in developing and retaining a complicated structure of ritual, I mean the Vedic tradition. Thus in this theory what is given in the hymn itself is regarded as imaginary, what is poetical is regarded as real and finally all this ritualistic explanation lacks the support of the Vedic ritualistic tradition itself and what is more signi. ficant is that a very weighty, continuous and uniform historical tradition is opposed to it. Dange rightly desires an explanation that would explain the hymn as a whole' in a satisfactory manner and one is left wondering whether his explanation achieves what he is seeking.
Velankar and Geldner are of the view that a 'race' is contemplated here. According to Velankar in this race episode Mudgalang is the principal figure. At this race Mudgala and Mudgalani won with the help of a single bull, yoked to a bullock cart, along with a dummy block, the Drughana, perhaps fitted with smaller wheels, in place of another bull. It is Mudgalāni, skillful driving that has been in the main responsible for this victory at the race. Mudgala also did play an important part in this episode since he fitted up the cart for the race, was himself in the cart and drove also with a whip in his hand (vv. 5 b, 7ab, 8ab, 9cd and jayema' in 11c). He is

23

Page #33

24
The Hymn of Mudgala Bharmyasva (X. 102)
therefore 'astrāvi' in the hymn (8a). Mudgala drove the bull while Mudgalāni drove the dummy, apparently a more difficult part. This very dummy is the dudhi" (6c) and “kakardu' (6b). The dust raised by the dummy settles on the tresses of Mudgalāni, 'scchanti sma nişpado mudgalanim (6). Since the victory was to be joint we have the expressions like 'no'va' and 'jayema' (110). According to Velankar, the entire hymn is spoken by Mudgala himself and he is here seen reproducing the whole scene of the race before his mind and this includes sks 1,3 and 12 which according to some scholars, Griffith, Dange and others do not form a part of the account and are in all probability later additions. The hymn is therefore according to Velankar a monologue of Mudgala about the race and the incident of his victory in it. Geldner is also of the view that we are here dealing with a race as Velankar thinks, yet his picture of the race is entirely different from that of Velankar, Mudgala according to Geldner is an old man, decrepit and impotent as the word 'vadhri' (12) suggests. Mudgalāni is the fair young wife of this old Mudgala. This odd couple participates in a race and is the but of ridicule of the spectators. The couple wins and the spectators indulge in jokes and ribaldry and appear to be jealous of the old sage with a fair young wife. They pity Mudgalani's lot in being the spouse of an impotent sage, 'kūcakrena sincan' (11) and express a desire to have a ride with her, "esaisya cidrathya jayema' (11). Mudgalani had no child as the word 'parivrkta' suggests and this was in all probability due to the old age and impotency of Mudgala. Thus the hymn breathes the turf-club atmosphere with fun, jokes aad loose talk. According to Geldner therefore there are many speakers and the įks are to be accordingly distributed. The dummy or the urinatiog of the bull only represent the obstructions created by the rivals in the race. The odd couple winning a race with a false car is the subject of the hymn according to Geldner's rendering. The atmosphere and the peculiar circumstances in which Geldner has put Mudgala and his wife are entirely foreign to the atmosphere of a Vedic race. Again in the hymn itself there is nothing whatsoever that even remotely suggests either the old age or impotency of Mudgala. Mudgalānı is a neglected wife parivrkta, and she with her victory won the esteem of her husband. In the hymn again we find Mudgala exerting himself as his wife and the victory is a joint one. Mudgalāni is the skillful driver but Mudgala is the victor, ‘rathirabhūt mud galāni' (2) but Mudgalah jigaya' (5,9). In view of all this evidence available from the hymn itself, it is difficult to accept Geldner's suggestions. He is reading a modern circumstance and atmosphere perhaps in an ancient hymn without any evidence from the text.
Velanker follows the text in a very close manner no doubt. It is true that the word 'aji' refers to both, a battle and a race. So is the case with the word 'pradhana', and Kaştha. Indra is invoked in both the contexs of

Page #34

The Hymn of Mudgala Bharmyaśra (X'. 102)
a war and a chariot race. For instance we see Ekadadyu Naudhas in his obvious race-hymn (VIII.88.8) invoking Indra, Races involved horses, arvat, but I think rarely bulls, vṛşabhas. One may here refer to vajesu arvatāmiva' (IX.47.5), 'arvanto na kāṣṭhām' (VII.93.3). The words 'rathasanga' (IX.53.2), 'rathya ōji' (IX.91.1) do indicate the chariot races. Yet with all this evidence which I may call as indecisive in itself' being relevant in the contexts of both the war and the race, I am not inclined to accept Velankar, Geldner, Pischel and Von Bradke so far as their race theory' goes. My reasons are that in the first place we are dealing here with a bull and the car or the chariot since the hymn uses both the words, 'ratha' (1,2,11) and 'anas' (6) and more commonly the race involves horses. It may be urged against this argument that here we have a unique race in which a chariot or car drawn by a bull and a wooden dummy and driven by a lady is shown as winning the race. This may be granted. But then what about the presence of the persons who seek to kill, those who attack and of the weapon of an arya or a dasa jighamsataḥ, abhidasataḥ, āryasya va dusasya vadha' indicated in the hymn. (3) Who are the proud rivals, 'abhimati' against whom the bull charges? (4) Such vile enemies are not spoken of in the contexts of a race in the Rgveda as for instance, in the songs of Gauraviti Sāktya (X,74), Ekadyu Naudhas (VIII. 80) and others. There is another circumstance which to me has significance. It may be granted that mud galaḥ pradhane jigaya' may indicate a war as well as a race; but then. this view cannot be taken in the context of the words 'bhare kṛtam vyacedindrasena' (2). In the hymns of war and race there occur the words 'bhare kṛtam' and 'bhare hitam' obviously referring to the prize collected. It is seen that the words 'bhare hitem' occur in the context of races while 'bhare kṛtam' occur in the context of wars. Thus in a clear 'race' context (VIII,88.8) we have 'urot käṣṭhā hitam dhanam'; at another place (IX. 53.2) we have have 'dhane 'rathasange dhane hite'; at yet another place (VI. 45.13) we hite bhare' and 'jeși hitam dhanam.' As against this in places where a war is contemplated we have the words 'bhare kṛtam'. Thus at one place (1.132.1) we have 'vi cayema bhare kṛtam, vajayanto bhare kṛtam'; at another place (IX. 97.58) we have 'bhare kṛtam vicinuyama' and finally another supporting circumstance is that Indra, the most successful in war is called as jyestharaja bhare kṛinu'. (VIII. 6,3). I might further refer to the fact that phrase for collecting the spoils in war appears to be 'bhare kṛtam vi ci' as is to be seen here. (IX. 97.58; I. 132.1) and this very pharse occurs in the hymn before us in 'bhare kṛtam vyacedindrasena' (2). To me, the Vedic poets appear to make a subtle distinction between a race and a war and are therefore deliberately using these two distinct phrases. In the race the prize is fixed, placed and so we have bhare hitam dhanam' or 'dhane hite' and so on. On the other hand in a war the spoils are uncertain

25

Page #35

26
The Hymn of Mudgala Bharmyasva (X. 102)
and really are to be made and then collected. Hence we have bhare krtam vi ci'. It is for these reasons that one cannot accept the suggestions that we are dealing here with a 'race'. There is yet another supposition in Velanker's exposition which makes his view somewhat difficult for our acceptance. According to Velanker, the car had on one side the bull and wooden dummy with small wheels on the other, to serve as another bull and so it was the companion of the bull, vrṣabhasya yunjam as the drughana is described (9). Further Velanker feels that Mudgala himself drove the bull while Mudgalāni did the more difficult part of driving the dummy. It is clear from the hyma itself that the bull and the dummy serving as the bull were yoked to the car and they sped to victory. But the circumstance of two drivers at one and the same time driving two animals yoked to a car is something very rare as well as strange. Neither the Veda nor the Epics show a supporting illustration for such an incident. It is for these reasons that the 'race' theory has to be discarded.
In this manner we come to the conclusion that it is a war that we are dealing with here, a view that has been put forth by Bloomfield, Pargiter and others. Yet the views of Bloomfield and Pargiter cannot be accepted in their entirety. According to Bloomfield it is a mythological fight and not a human one. According to him the theme of the hymn is a battle and in the course of it a hammer, drughana, plays an important part, a singular role. The coupling of the forces of Senā and Vajra as male and female embodiments of Indra's forces is the rock-bed upon which the legend has grown up. In Indrasenā he sees the embodiment of the female forces and the drughaņa stands for the male forces. In conbination, these two forces win. This is, as a matter of fact going too far. The characters that participate are clearly treated as human individuals and it is difficult to think that symbolism is here resorted to. The Mahabharata and the Purānas as the earlier versions of the incident, though divergent in themselves, are yet uniform in making the characters historical persons and the incident a real happening. It is in this eontext that the view of Bloo. mfield becomes difficult to be accepted. Pargiter also is inclined to read a historical event and personalities as involved in this hymn but he introduces more characters in the incident than the hymn warrants. Pargiter (JRAS. 1910, p. 1328) in the light of the information supplied by the Purānas regards Indrasena and Mudgalānī as two different persons; for Mudgalāni is not mentioned in the Puranic geneology but, as the name clearly indicates, she inust be the wife of Mudgala. Indrasenā is given in the geneology as the daughter-in-law of Mudgala. Further the word 'vadhri' (12) in the hymn according to him refers to Vadbryaśva who in the geneology is the son of Indrasenā. Keśī is according to him a proper noun of the person who

Page #36

The Hymn of Mudgala Bharmyaśva (X. 102)
27
drove the chariot and Mudgaläni simply accompanied Mudgala in the chariot. He thinks that Indrasena's husband Brahmiştha is not mentioned in the hymn for he had taken to 'brahmanhood' and had forsaken possibly his wife Indrasena and it is therefore she and not Mudgalāni is 'parivrkta'. All these suggestions conflict with tbe account of the hymn violently; for it is clear that Indrasenā and Mudgalāni are one and the same. Even if 'indrasena' is taken in an adjectival manner, it is qualifying Mudgalān; and so these are not two distinct persons. The hymn clearly suggests Mudgalāni to be the driver and also a cause of the success and hence she is not a passive spectator. It is too much to think that ‘vad hri' refers to Vadhryasva who plays not only no part but also has no possible place in the incident in the hymn. Ludwig rightly thinks that here is a war described but assigns a different role to the drughana' which is a mace according to him. The mace was thrown in front for it showed the way the thieves had gone and when victory was achieved the king threw the mace upon the field of battle and it lay there 'kasthāyā madhye drughanam sayanam' as the hymn puts it. The club or the mace helped King Mudgala in this manner. One feels that the correct significance of the phrase, 'vrşabhasya yunjam' is being lost here. The internal evidence is clear that the mace was yoked to the chariot and it drew it helping the bull.
In view of these various opinions about the hymn a fresh look at it wouid appear to have some justification. The obscurities in the Rgveda are a constant challenge to its students, Sāyana prefaces the hymn with two earlier references to the hymn. He goes on : 'atrāhuḥ -
mud galasya hşlā gõ vaḥ coraiḥ tyaktua jaradgavam / sa śiştam sakațe kyļvā gatvaika rjurähavam |
drughanam yuyuje'nyatra coramärganusarak / tathi nirukte'pīyan katha sūcita
mudgalo bhürmyasva rșih vrşabham ca drughanam ca
yuktvo samgrāme vyavahrtya ajim jigāya iti'. (IX.23.) The Nirukta (18. 23,24) practically comments on two įks (X.102. 5 and 9) of this hymn and in the process regards this account as 'itihāsa' in its tatra itihāsam ācaksate.' Durga's commentary further helps us to understand certain points about which confusion appears to have made in the different interpretaions. Thus the central theme is a war 'aji, pradhana, samgrāma' in which Mudgala wins his stolen cattle. In the Rgveda we have references to cattle-lifting and cattle-raiding, not only on the mychological plane but on the human one too. Mudgala has all his cattle stolen and is left with only one strong bull as the hymn describes the bull drinking a tank of water, attacking in a dashing manner the opponent and being non-castrated

Page #37

28
The Hymn of Mudgala Bhārmyaśva (X. 102)
(4). So the traditional version of Mudgala being left with an old bull, 'jarad gau' is not in keeping with the account of the hymn. Mudgalāni, SO far a neglected wife, parivȚktā, of the King Mudgala drove the chariot to which were yoked on one side the strong bull and on the other the drughana, the wooden dummy or mace. The hymn and the traditional account agrees in these details. Being an occasion of war it is natural for Mudgala to invoke Indra for help for protection (1) for attack on and a warding off of the enemies (3), to have a feeling that Indra has protected him and the bull (7) and finally to thank Indra for the protection given (12). It is absolutely unnecessary to regard these verses as being interpolations or later additions. It is also perfectly natural to have a description of the driver Mudgalāni (2,6), of the treatment given to the bull and to the 'drughana' before and after the war (4-10). The hymn is concluded with the desctiption of the good luck and fortune of Mudgalāni and Mudgala (11, 12). If Mudgalādi was the driver whose skill in driving was responsible for the success, King Mudgala was the warrior with the goad in his hand and fought with a heroic spirit once he had a view of the cows (8). It was indeed the victory of Mudgala, the hero with the goad and so the hymn is asserting the fact twice (5.9). The wind flowing the garment of Mudga. lāni, the dung of the bull flying towards her, and her shouting are all gra. phic and poetic descriptions in the hymn (2,6). In this way the hymn describes in a cogent manner the wonderful victory that Mudgala achieved for the world, many people or followers of his to see (8). This then appears to me to be a perfect Rgvedic ballad and I proceed to iranslate and explain the hymn which has been regarded as a difficult one and which Bloomfield regards as belonging to the final irresolvable remgant of the Veda.
RV. X. 102 Text, Translation, Notes
Rși : Mudgala Bhärmyaśva; Deity : Drughana or Indra.
Metre : Triştup; 1, 3, 12 Bșhati pra te ratham mithūkstam indraḥ avatu dhrşnuya | asminnajau puruhūta śravayye dhanabhakşeșu naḥ ava // (1)
May Indra boldly protect thy chariot uniquely paired. Oh much and widely invoked one, protect us in this fame-securing struggle amidst wealth-eaters,
(The first line is spoken by Mudgala and addressed to Mudgalāns while the second line also spoken by him is addressed to Indra. Hence te ratham. for Mudgaläni is the sārathi. In the second line he invokes Indra to protect them both and hence 'naḥ ava'. By dhanabhakşa' are to be understood the cattle-lifters, the wealth-eaters. Being a plural it ill-agrees with ajau which is a singular. Sayana's second way is better. Nor can it refer to

Page #38

The Hymn of Mudgala Bharmyaśva (X. 102)
29
Mudgalānı as desiring the enjoyment of wealth. 'mithūkstam' is a problem. Sāyana takes it as mīthah kriam asahāyam krtam' and adds 'athayā mithuriti mithyanāma' since there are no horses etc, 'aśvādibhiḥ śünyam kệtam'. Velankar translates imposing' and understands 'mithu' as connected with fraud. Griffith regards the meaning uncertain and renders that works on either side. Geldner understands the word as meaning 'false'. It is possible that the word has some connection with ‘mithuna' 'mithaḥ' mith-ra' pairing or binding is involved rather than with 'mithya or mithu' connected with fraud, For here is no fraud but there is indeed a unique pairing: Mudgala and Mudgalāni, a male warrior and a female driver, a strong bull and the wooden mace, the drughana and finally the all-powerful Indra and the weak, vadhri Mudgala. We have 'vrşabhasya yuñjam' (9) and 'vadhriņā yuja' (12). Hence Indra is to protect boldly' dhțşnuya'.
uta sma vāto vahati vāso asyā adhiratham yadajayat sahasram/ rathirabhūnmudgalani gayistau bhare kstam vyacedindrasena 11 (2)
And the wind made her garment flow (flutter) when she through the chariot won a thousand. In this search of the cows the wife of Mudgala was the chief in the chariot; Indrasenā collected the spoils in the war.
(*vāto vahati vāso asya' is a beautiful description of the female driver. This is obviously due to the speed of the chariot, as Sāyaṇa observes sīghrarathadhāyanajanito vāyuh amśukam calayali'. When a woman moves in some speed this is but natural. In the Mahābhārata Virāta parvan, Goharana 38. 31. we have a situation where Arjuna as Bịhannala, a female drives the chariot of Uttara and in the context we get dirgham venim vidhunyānah sadhu rakte ca vāsasi, vidhūya venim dhāvantam' etc. In the Mịcchakațikam Šūdraka describes Vasantasenā moving about as 'raktāmsukam pavanalolada sam vahanti'. This graphic description therefore cannot with justifcation be taken to suggest the lady to be 'scantily' clad or "quasi-naked' for the agricultural ritual as Dange understands. Whatever is casual is regarded by Dange as the central fact, 'bhare kặtam' is to be contrasted with 'bhare hitam'; uncertain booty collected in war as against the prize announced and fixed for a race, Indrasenā is the proper name of Mudgalāni. Griffith translates 'Indra's dart', the lady being sped swiftly on her way by Indra. Bloomfield understands as 'Indra's wife', a female personification of Indra's forces. As Pargiter has shown Indrasena in the Purāņic geneology is a daughter-in-law of Mudgala. Here the grammatical construction clearly indicates that Mudgalāni and Indrasena are one and the same and word mud galant suggests her relation with Mudgala. Similar help by the wife is to be seen later in the Daśaratha-Kaikeyi episode where she put her hand in place of the axis broken. The cattlelifting occurs in the Mabābhārata where the Kauravas try to take away the cattle-wealth o the Matsya King Virāța. 'adhiratham sahasram gavām' wouid mean a thousand

Page #39

30
The Hymn of Mud gala Bharmyaśva (X. 102)
cows in addition to a chariot; but in the hymn there is no reference to an additional chariot being won (5,9). It would therefore be better to underst. and it as suggesting the instrumentality of the chariot in the victory and this is as a matter of fact suggested in the preceeding verse. 'rathirabhūt' must be understood in agreement with 'sārathirasya kesi (9). She is 'rathi' for she plays an important part through her skillful driving.)
antaryaccha jighamsato vajramindrabhidāsatah / dāsasya rā maghavannāryasya vā sonutar yavayā vadham // (3).
Oh Indra, hurl thy bolt amidst those that seek to kill and those that attack. Oh Bounteous one, keep away the secrcetly used weapon whether of a Dasa or of an Arya.
(Like the first verse this third one is spoken by Mudgala being a prayer to Indra. Some take 'antaryaccha' as 'do not allow to come out, keep it within', and connect it with the 'weapon of the enemey who seeks to kill and attack'. In this case 'vajra' is taken in a secondary sense of a deadly weapon'; its primary meaning is the deadly weapon of Indra. It would be better to connect 'antah' with the forms 'jighamsatah' and 'abhidasataḥ and understand as 'amidst the enemy who seeks to kill and attack. Vajra' then can be taken in its so well known and familiar primary sense. This way would also better agree with the request to Indra. 'abhi' with dās' is to attack. “yavaya' separate, keep away the 'vadha' 'weapon of one who uses it secretly going with 'dāsasya or äryasya'. The contrast in 'vajra' and 'vadha' is intended deliberately, one is inclined to think )
udno hrdama pibajjarhrşāṇaḥ kūtam sma tịrhadabhimātimeti pra muskabhāraḥ śrava icchamānah ajiram bāhu abharat sişāsan | (4)
Delighting, he djank a lake of water. He attacked the enemy with a tearing horn. With massive testicles, desiring fame, in no time, wishing to capture, he brought into play his arms, forelegs.
(The bull is spoken of as the agent of the various actions referred to bere, drinking water, attacking enemy, desiring fame and running on all fours. 'Udno hrdam apibat' obviously has its agent the bull for this fact has a relation with 'amehayan' in the next verse. kuta' appears to be a problem; its meanings are horn, peak, a point etc. Velankar thinks that 'kūta' here refers to the Drughana, the dummy while Dange thinks that it refers to the 'plough-share'. Wilson is following Sayana in rendering 'he cleft the mountain peak, he went against the enemy'. Griffith observes that 'feeling uneasy he hung his head and struck the ground with his horns.' Velankar renders "the Kūța, the dummy, goes forward dashing down the proud rival. To me, we have, it appears, a syabhāvokti' in which we are told that the bull after delightfully drinking a lake of water attacked the enemy with his horn flourishing, meaning his hoin in a slanting position with a

Page #40

The Hymn of Mudgela Bharmyaśva (X, 102)
view to tearing the object in front. Thus 'kūta' is the horn of the bull. "Irmhat' would be a present participle qualifying the 'kuta'. The forefeet of an animal are figuatively described as the 'bahu' arms of the creatrue 'muşkabḥāraḥ'; massive uncastrated testicles indicate vigorous strength of the bull. The bull ran on all fours 'śrava icchamanah' is a link with the 'sravayye' in the very first verse. 'abhimati' is the thieves who had taken away the cows of Mudgala, Dange takes it as the symbolic evil that thwarts the harvest without any justification and SO does Griffith refer it to Mudgalani's chief opponent. The bull contemplated here is the bull yoked to the chariot and through which Mudgala became victorious as is clear from the next verse. As a matter of fact, these two rks the present one and the next go together, wishing to win', siṣasan, the bull extended his arms, brought into play his forelegs, ran very swiftly. It is difficult to understand why Velankar thinks that this bull was driven by Mudgala himself. There is no indication of this being the case so far.)
nyakrandayannupayanta enamamehayan vṛṣabham madhya ajeḥ |
tena subharvam satavat sahasram gavām mudgalaḥ pradhane jigaya || (5) Approaching the bull, they caused him in the midst of the battle, to thunder and to urinate. Through him, Mudgala won in the battle well fed cattle in hundreds and thousands.
31
(According to Velankar here is given the activity of the rivals of Mudgala to slacken the speed of the bull. They cause the bull to 'cry and to piss' in the middle of the race so that Mudgala may not win. We have here a battle and not a race. So approaching, 'upayantaḥ' are Mudgala's men and not his rivals. They are encouraging the bull to further action in the battle. The animal is being fondly treated and is made to relieve itself, which is perhaps very natural after the drinking of a tank of water described in the previous verse. That the bull was made to thunder is also natural for mighty bulls do thunder and inspire fear in the minds of the others. This bull is a 'muşkabhāraḥ' and hence thunders. Sāyaṇa is a safe guide when he is observing 'amehayan mütra purisotsargam visramartham käritavantaḥ.' Durga while commenting on the Nirukta IX. 23. rightly observes 'yāvā dayam sakṛnmütram karoti tato laghu sukham bhavisyati iti'. 'sa hi gominam ajisṛtām svabhavaḥ.' This is animal behaviour when it is in a mood to undertake some vigorous activity. If this activity were an obstruction contemplated, then 'tena' at the beginning of the next line would be irrelevant and would perhaps carry an unwarraned sense of 'in spite of and not the one of 'through that bull so treated'. Velankar is naturally required to add 'yet' in his rendering though there is nothing in the text to support its addition. 'subharvam' is well-fed and goes with the cattle won. 'tena', 'through this vṛşabha' Mudgala won a thousand and hundred well-fed cattle in the battle, 'pradhane jigaya'. Dange thinks of 'consacrated water' in 'udno hṛdam apibat' while in 'amehayan" seeks a reference to 'a ritual

Page #41

The Hymn of Mudgala Bharmyaśva (X. 102)
practice', a way which may not win general approval, 'subharvam' may indicate the reason why the cattle were stolen.)
32
kakardave vṛşabho yukta āsīdavavacīt sarathirasya kest /
dudher yuktasya dravataḥ sahanasa rcchanti ṣmā nispado mud galānim || (6)
For crushing the enemy was yoked the bull, his driver with long hair shouted. Of the irresistable yoked, while running swiftly with the chariot, the dust raised, moved towards Mudagalanj.
no
the
('kakardave' is a problem. The word occurs only here. Sāyaṇa takes it as 'himsanaya satrunām. Ludwig thinks 'kakarda' to be a part of the charlot, farther end of the chariot pole. Griffith renders the word as in the hope of victory'. Von Bradke thinks the word to be 'kapardave' and thus tries to get over the difficulty. Velankar is of the view that 'kakardave' is elther dative or locative and is the dummy that was in charge of Mudgalāni and Velankar further, thinks that it might be suggestive of the cracking sound made by the dummy. He also adds that this same dummy is called was mechanical and its movements had to be refractory, 'dudhi' since it difficult to accept these suggestions. entirely guided by the driver. It is Dange takes the word to suitably indicate the dig in the ploughing, which has suitable context here. Looking to trend of the narrative and of the line, the straightforward way of the lines would be us something about to regard them as parallel constructions and telling the bull and the driver. The first line tells us about the very purpose for which the bull was yoked, hence we have 'kakardave yukta' in the context of the 'vrsabha' and in the second line we have of the bull stated 'dudheḥ yuktasya dravataḥ'- all the genetives going together and this 'yukta' is obviously identical with the 'yukta' in the first line. Thus 'kakardave' gives the 'dudheh' a genetive speaks of the bull. 'Dudheḥ' also is a purpose while problem for it occurs only here. In 'avāvacit sarathiḥ asya kest', 'asya' naturally stands for the "vrşabha' in the preceeding part. 'kest' is Mudgalāni, fluttered Her hair like her garment in the the lady with long tresses. breeze and to indicate this fact the word 'kest' has been deliberately used. The words 'vrşabhaḥ yukta asit' and 'sarathiḥ asya kesi' clearly repudiates Velankar's suggestion that Mudgalani drove the drughana, the dummy and it was Mudgala himself who drove the bull. The entire verse speaks of the "vṛṣabha' and the 'kesi sarathi Mudgalani' and of nothing else. In the circumstances 'dudhi' appears to be the adjectve of the bull running with the cart, saha anasa, going with 'dravataḥ. Griffith seems to drop the word in his rendering. Velankar takes it to mean 'refractory' and going with the dummy, the drughana. Considering all these factors I prefer it to follow Sāyaṇa who renders it as 'durdharasya' meaning 'of the irresistable' and this fits in well with the mighty "vrşabha' which is already described as

Page #42

The Hymn of Mudgala Bharmyaśva (X. 102)
33
'muskabharah' (4). In 'kakardave' the base appears to be 'karda' with an intensifying reduplication. The nearest classical is 'kadana' a war or slaughter. 'nispada' is dung according to Geldner, paricles of dust flying from the hoofs according to Velankar, lifted heels according to Griffith and Schroeder, ‘nirgacchanto yoddhārah' according to Sayaņa. The tone of the line suggests dung as the likely meaning. That the driver so near the animal, inciting it to move on with speed by shouting, favāvacīt' is very naturally liked to be besmeared with the dung and the dust of the bull. The construction
drayataḥ nispado ?cchanti şma mud galānim should leave no doubt about the ineaning intended. It is to be noted that here we are dealing with a verse in which three important words, 'kakardave, dudheh, nişpadah' vital for a proper elucidation of the entire verse occur here only in the whole of the Rgveda. Any rendering therefore must appear as conjectural.)
uta prad himudahannasya vidvānupāyunagvasagamatra sikşan / indra udāvat patimaghnyānämaramhata pad yabhiḥ kakudman 11 (7)
The knower raised up the yoking-place of this cart. Here controlling the one in whom speed was desired, yoked it. Indra in an excellent manner protected the lord of the cows. The one with a prominent hump sped with mighty steps.
(Here is the account of the yoking of the choriot as completed by the knower, who obviously is Mudgala himself. The 'vrşabha' was already yoked for we get 'vrsabha yukta asit' in the preceding verse. 'asya' stands for the chariot and the construction is 'asya pradhim udahan' the knower, vidvān, raised up the pradhi of the chariot. "Pradhi' is a problem. Ludwig's conjecture is that it means the car-pole. According to the St. Petersburg Lexicon it is the periphery of the wheel.' To Wilson it is the frame of the wagon and Sāyana's explanation, though not quite clear, appears to make it the linchpin of the chariot. To Velankar it appears to refer to the spokes of the wheels. From the circumstance that this part was raised first, 'udahan' before the the yoking of the animal as indicated in 'upāyunak' it appears to be the front part of the chariot where the animal is yoked. It is natural that this part is required to be raised to the height of the animal so that it could be placed properly on its neck as soon as the animal gets into its line. 'vaisaga' here as well as at X. 106.5, X. 144. 3. is understood by Sāyana as 'yananiyagamana' one in whom movement and speed are desired. Velankar, Griffith take it to refer to the bull and Dange takes it to mean the Jord of the herd. It is likely that the word refers to the Drughana which is now being yoked. It is of wood and in itself and by itself it is incapable of any movement, activity and speed. In this sense it is 'vananīyagamana' as Sayana explains. But Sayaņa refers it to the bull. The durghana is to be the companion of the bull, 'vrşabhasya yuñja (9) and therefore is to be yoked on the other side so that the two together could draw the chariot.

Page #43

34
The Hymn of Mudgala Bharmyaśva (X, 102)
We also get "yam yuñjanti' later in the following verse (10). It appears that a contrast is intended in ‘vamsamaga' tbe dummy, the drughana, inherently motionless and the "kakudman' the vigoruos mighty bull. In one was speed to be desired while in the other it was a natural possession. (fikşan refers the controlling and putting on the reins etc. treatment natural to a living animal. Thus the line would mean that Mudgala, the vidvān, the knower, raised aloft the yoking point of the car and treating the drughana as it were a bull, desiring speed in it yoked it to the chariot. In the next line we are told how the bull having a wooden mace on the other side as its companion ran on all fours and received excellent protection from Indra. 'aramhata' 'vegena agamat'. 'padyabhi' with the activity of the feet. The two words 'aghnyanām pati' and 'kakudman' bring out the might and the vigour of the bull. Sāyaṇa thinks that the description of the drughana starts from `imam tam paśya etc.' (9); but I am inclined to think that it Is the yoking of the drughana that is referred to in the first line and later we get the description of the drughana after the battle is over. The second line refers to the excellent protection from Indra and the speed of the bull for it ran in spite of the fact that it had a wooden companion on the other side. The animal was to run under odd conditions and it did the expected job in a very remarkable manner.)
sunamastrāvyacarat kapardi varatrāyam darvanahyamānaḥ nymņāņi kynvan bahave janāya gāḥ pas pašānastavişiradhatia // (8)
The one with matted hair, having the goad, moved on happily, firmly, binding the wood in the leather-strap. Performing mighty deeds for many people on seeing the cows, put on strength. ..(Here is obuiously described Mudgala, the hero of the episode. The Vedic poet with a superb economy of expressions has given two fine similes in this verse. Mudgala in the chariot with the 'aştrā' and himself a 'kapardr invites a natural comparison with the god Pūşan. Another point of
t relevant in this context is the association of Puşan with the cattle, pašu, and Mudgala too is on this occasion after the cattle that have been stolen. Pūšan is a “kapardi' and 'rathitama' (VI. 55. 2) and has an 'aştras (VI. 53. 9) which is ‘paśusadhani'. In 'nțmnāņi kịnyan bahave janaya' he is thought of in terms applicable to Indra. The binding of wood in varatrayam' refers to the yoking of the 'drughana' which is as a matter of fact, nothing but dāru' and it in all probability has 10 reference to the yoking of the bullas Velankar understands. Nor is the bull the subject here as Griffith seems to understand. Dange has no doubts about the epithets here being of the bull and of the Bull's being identified with Indra. In 'gaḥ paspaśānaḥ' and 'tavişiradhatta' Dange sees the "touching of the cows and the depositing of the seed in them by the bull', an idea that

Page #44

The Hymn of Mudgala Bhurmyaśva (X. 102)
on the very face of it seems to be foreign to the hymn in general and the rk in particular. Geldner is right in so far as he takes Mudgala to be the subject here. Mudgala's proper weapon appears to have been the drughana, but that was required to play the part of a bull and so firmly bound in the leather-strap, the 'varatra'. The weapon, therefore he used was the goad, the astra', hence he was 'astravi'. Thus in spite of the fact that the charioteer was his wife, a wooden dummy was yoked on one side of the chariot to play the part of an animal, an associate animal of the only bull that he was left with, Mudgala moved on happily. When he saw his cows he gained strength, put on a manly and heroic attitude and mixing the roles of the gods Puṣan and Indra, worked a wondrous deed for many people, the deed of recovering of cows from his enemies. In three verses we see Mudgala as offering prayers (1. 3. 12) and in the present one we see him as the victor and indeed it is his victory that the hymn is seen asserting twice (5,9). There is propriety in thinking of the hero in terms of Indra and Pușan for here we have fight for the cattle, 'paśu')
imam tam pasya vṛṣabhasya yuñjam kāṣṭhāyā madhye drughanam sayānamj yena jigāya satavat sahasram gavam mudgalaḥ pṛtanajyeṣu|| (9)
Look at this companion of the bull, the drughana, the wooden mace, lying in the middle of the battlefield, through which Mudgala won a hundred and thousand more in the battles.
35
(According to Sayaṇa from this verse onwards begins the description of the 'drughaṇa', 'pūrvam vṛṣabho varnitaḥ atra drughano varṇyate/Further, Sayaṇa thinks that this verse is addressed to one who is ridiculing the victory of King Mudgala when he had army and the like. Vṛşabhasya yuñjam' conveys the sense that it accomplished whatever the bull accomplished. It is therefore that we get yena jigaya sahasram' in the context of the bull as well as in the context of the 'drughana'. After the battle was
over, the 'drughana' was allowed to lie on the battlefield itself, practically neglected hence 'kasthāyā madhye sayanam'. 'Pṛtanajyeşu' is rendered by Sayana as 'samgrameşu'. The idea appears to be that after the event, the bull as well as the 'drughana' were released from the chariot and the bull only was taken to the resting place and looked after in a manner befitting the victor, the animal that brought victory. In contrast the 'drughana' was lying on that battlefield itself, though it also was equally the cause of victory. Ludwig has conjectured that the King threw down the mace, but we know that the mace was yoked to the chariot.)
are agha ko nvittha dadarsa yam yuñjanti tamva sthapayanti | nāsmai tṛṇam nodakamabharantyuttaro dhuro vahati pradediśat // (10)

Page #45

36
The Hymn of Mudgala Bharmyaśva (X. 102)
Far be the evil. Who has seen thus ? Whom they yoke, him they allow to lie down, be dumped. To bim they do not bring grass, nor water. The superior one carried the yoke guiding properly.
(Griffith regards this verse as unintelligible. Velankar thinks that the 'drughana' is placed on the charist and is being taken home in a triumphant manner. In 'yam yuñj anti' perhaps after Sayana 'yam' and 'tam' are takea to refer to the chariot whereas these expressions refer to the drughana' itself. Further this way of honouring the drughana' would go against the gross neglect as indicated in not offering it either grass or water which reveal the affection and esteem. The verse speaks of the evil that is ingratitude as seen in this neglect. 'pradedisat' is directing the movement or showing the direction. The drughana as the companion, not only kept pace with the bull but also guided the movement. It, hence, carried the yoke, dhuro vahati pradediśat'; therefore it is regarded as better, superior, excellent, 'uttara' having all these shades. Velankar rightly takes 'are agha' in the sense of 'śāntam papam'. It is to be remembered that the drughana is the deity, devata'. It is the expression 'pradediśat' that is responsible for the version that the mace was thrown in front of the chariot and it showed the way but such an judication is not availa. ble in the hymn.)
pariurkteva pativid yamanat pipyāna kūcakrena siñcan / eşaişya cidrathya jayema sumangalam sinavadastu satam 11 (11)
Like a neglected wife swelling with milk she obtained her husband, she prosperiog through bad wheels. May we conquer with her as the driver eagerly seeking the desired wealth and cattle. May our gains be auspicious and rich in food.
(Mudgalāni's good fortune is here described. She was upto this time a neglected wife, a parivrkta', perhaps because of her barrenness. Among 1 be King's wives ‘parivykta' is one who is avoided. But now through this victory which she gained for Mudgala by her driving, she found favours with him and she is restored to her proper and lawful place, in this sense she has found her husband. Mudgala did recognise the signal service rendered by her in this battle. The main idea appears to be expressed in the clause pipyānā kūcakreņa iva siñcan' which appears to mean she prospered as if sprinkling prosperity tbrough the "kūcakra'. 'kūcakrena' is a problem. Velankar understands by it an endlessly moving water wheel and so kūcakrena siñcan' is one pouring water through a water-wheel to a thirsty person perhaps referring to the fact that she did oblige Mudgla in the hour of bis need. It is possible that we have here a simile with a pun, ślisto pama; "kücakra' suggesting a bad wheeled chariot and 'an illorganised mechanism for sprinkling' a water-wheel as Velankar would like

Page #46

The Hymn of Mud gala Bhārmyasya (X, 102)
37
to take it. In that case the word 'sincan' also would give two meanings: one of showering prosperity agreeing with the sense of chariot with a bad wheel, and the other of spriokliag water, a life-giving thing to any needy. The word 'siñcan' is a tricky one. It obviously means 'sprinkling as connected with water espcially' and this must have led Sāyaṇa to think of the earth, kucakra and the showers from a cloud. His idea that Mudgalāns showered arrows on the enemy has no support from the hyun which indicates that she was driver and nothing more. Sayaņa's explanation based on his idea of Mudgalani as a warrior is therefore unsatisfactory. This same word 'siñcan' has perhaps led Geldner to think of ideas connected with sex. The root 'siñc' has the sense in classical usage of 'sprinkling of semen' as in the word 'nişeka' or in Kālidasa's 'nișiñcan mrādhavimetām latām kaundim ca nartayan' where 'nişiñcan' has this sense. Geldner with this idea in his mind and perbaps with the suggestions conveyed by the word 'pariurkta' thioks that Mudgala was an old impotent person and kūcakreņa siñcan' therefore would mean "being sprinkled with a bad pump' indicating the sexual weakness of the husband. Geldaer thiaks this verse to be spkoen by the spectators of the race and it is they who express their desire for a ride with the fair young wife in 'eşais ya cidrathyā javema'. It is difficult to accept these suggestions for which there is no support from the hymn. The masculine gender in 'siñcan also might have been responsible for this idea for on that count one is likely to thiok of Mudgala here. In velankar's way of understanding things here kucakra' means an endlessly moving water-wheel and sincan' irrespectve of the gender would refer to Mudgalāji. Mudgalādi's victory was achieved with an ill-equipped chariot, artificially repaired smithūkyta' and so in the simile the water-feeding mechanism also would be bad'. Thus the first line has two similes for Mudgalāni: as a parivrkta she did find a husband and she showered prosperity on him with a bad wheeled chariot as watergiver would shower water to a thirsty through an imperfect mechanism.
pipyānā' would go with both the simsies, in one case it meaning swelling with milk and in another swelling with prosperity, and success. In the second line 'rathya' is instrumental singular and hearkens back to 'rathi (2) Mudgalāni. Mudgala expresses his desire that with this charioteer, the most desired eşa-eşya, - now that Mudgalādi bad won his favours - may we win, jayema, in times to come. Satam means gains in a battle and it is prayed that may these be sinavat, possessed of nourishing food and auspicious 'sumangalam.'
tvam visvasya jagatah cakşurindrasi cakşuşah / vrya adjim Ursana siya sasi codayan Madhrina yuja || (12)
Oh Indra, thou art the eye of the entire world, in fact, the eye of the eye. Thou seekest to win the war with only one mighty bull, impelling

Page #47

38
The Hymn of Mudgala Bhārmyaśva (X., 102)
bim forth, though accompanied by a weakling companion.
(The last verse is the expression of gratitude by Mudgala, as well as a clever resume of Indra's exploit here. This success was won because Indra protected the chariot (1), Indra kept away the deadly weapon of the enemy (3), Indra gave excellent protection to the bull (7) and Indra inspired Mudgala to accomplish something Indralike (8). There are three pairs participating here where in each case there is one who is strong vṛşa while the other is a weak person, 'vadhri,' Thus in the first place there is Indra who is a vṛşa and Mudgala who is a vad hri. Secondly there is Mudgala who is a vṛşa and Mudgalani who is a vadhri. Thirdly there is the bull who is a vṛşa and the drughana which is the vadhri. Thus 'vrşana vadhrina yuja' has a triple application, Mudgala refers to himself as a 'vadhri in a spirit of devotion and submission. The word has certainly not that significance which Geldner reads into it, the one of impotence of Mudgala. The first line describes in the usual Vedic manner the greatness of Indra, here in particular as the eye of the world, for Indra saw with his eye the dire need of his weak friend Mudgala and helped him.)
Griffith declared that
interpret it full and mime (Mysterium und Geldner without pay
The hymn has been a dispair of the scholars. the hymn is fragmentary, and it seems impossible to satisfactorily. Schroeder regards the hymn to be a Mimus im Ṛgveda) and in interpretation accepts ing any attention to Bloomfield's criticism. Keith regards the views of Bloomfield to be weighty and no satisfactory interpretation being possible unless these views are effectively refuted. Dange is of the view that no satisfactory explanation of the hymn as a whole which will hold good in respect of each of the verses in it has been accomplished. Bloomfield asserts that this hymn will figure in the final irresolvable remnant of the Veda, unless a new accession of materials should enrich our present apparatus for its reconstruction. These remarks are in themselves a justification for a fresh attempt at the reconstruction of the hymn in question.
The hymn is a war ballad and seems to utilise motifs that are to be seen in the later epic poetry. Thus cattle-lifting forms the very centre of the Viratparvan of the Mahabharata. Again a queen driving a chariot hour of need and then receiving favours in or helping the King in his return is to be seen in the Kaikeyi-Dasaratha episode in the Rāmāyaṇa. In the task of interpreting hymn the principle enunciated by Roth of interpreting Rgveda in terms of Rgveda does not help us for we get crucial words like kakardu, dudhi for the first and only time here. Nor is Sayana every time helpful for there are places where he obviously besides the point. But with all that in mind, his value cannot be overestimated. Indian tradition when it exists, is not sufficiently uniform and harmonious

Page #48

The Hymn of Mudgala Bhāimyasva (X, 102)
39
to form the basis of interpretation but it at the same time cannot be neglected altogether. When it does not exist at all, it could be an argument against a particular way and when it does exist, it has a limited but weighty authority which it would be unwise to disregard. The Nirukta and the commentary of Durga, the Brhaddevatā, the Purāṇas all throw light on this hymn and I believe, it would be much safer to walk in this light than to grope in sheer darkness.

Page #49

LECTURE III
THE HYMN OF AGASTYA AND LOPĀMUDRĀ (I. 179)
This very interesting hymn from Agastya Māna is a baffling one. Different scholars have tried their hands at it and various interpretations have been offered. I therefore turn my attention on it.
Agastya Māna is a Vedic celebrity and a colourful personality like Vasistba of the Seventh Mandala. Like Vasiştha he is also a Maitrāvaruni and his birth is described as from the same pitcher, "kumbha' and from the same seed and on the same occasion at a sacrifice. The sage Vasistha was to appear after Agastya Māna. All this interesting information is given to us in the Family Hymn of the Vasişthas, (VII.33.13) wbich runs as follows:
'satre ha jatūvisitā namobhih kumbhe retah sisicatuḥ samānam / tato ha muna udiyāya madhyāt tato jātamțşimuhurvasiştham // (VII. 33.13)
In the face of the different interpretations offered of this hymn what can safely be asserted in this context is that both Agastya Māna and Vasistha were regarded as divine in origin and it was as a matter of fact Agastya who introduced Vasistha to his people. It is common knowledge that Vasiştha was connected with the Tștsus while Agastya was connected with King Khela. In the hymns to Asvinau we are informed that the Aśvinau gave a leg of iron to Vispala, a relative of Khela as a result of the prayer of Agastya :
sūnoh manena aśvina grnāna vājam vi praya bhurana radanta agastye brahmaņā vāvşdhänā sam vispalam nasatyarinitam // (1.117.11) This feat is also referred to at other places (1.116.15; 112.10).
Agastya bas about twentyfive hymns to his credit. (I.165-91). These hymns throw an interesting light on his life. Since he is a Māna, his descendants are the Manyās, the forms in this context used are 'mānebhyah (1.169.8) 'manāsaḥ' (1.171.5). Agastya and his sons appear to have been con. nected with Trnaskanda, a chief about whom we do not hear much elsewhere but to whom the Mānas refer in their own description as 'Irnaskandasya višah'. (1.172. 3), while invoking protection. We find a son of Agastya having his name 'Māndārya' as mentioned in siyam gih mändaryasya manyasya karoh ([ 165.15). Similarly the sons of the sisters of Agastya, 'Bandhu' and others are also referred to as having been favoured by Indra as in 'agastasya nad bhyah sapti yunakşi rohita'. (X.60.6),

Page #50

The Hymn of Agastya ard Lopan udra (1. 179)
41
To judge by the hymns of Maitrāvaruni Agastya to be seen in the First Mandala, he seems to have passed through interesting struggles both, psychologically and socially. His songs to the Maruts indicate that he was an ardent admirer of these Storm Gods and it is from them that he turned to Indra. In one of his hymns (1.170) we have conciliation between Indra and the Maruts brought about by Agastya. The Maruts blame Agastya for not having supported their cause and Agastya plainly admits that he was afraid of Indra. One can well imagine a situation when the two cults, the Cult of Indra and the Cult of the Maruts were different, even antagonistic and that the two were later amalgamated. That Indra denies a share to the Maruts is a significant pointer in this direction. The poet Agastya reveals his anxiety for Indra's accepting his invitation to attend his sacrifice and to accept the offerings made. Efforts have been made to study the probable sequence of the Songs to the Maruts and to Indra by the sage Agastya for these songs reveal bis mental leanings and psychological development. There are two more hymns (1.189 and 1.192) that refer to two incidents in the life of Agastya. Of this two hymns the first (1.189) appears to have been composed at the time of a pestilence for this hymn contains clear prayers requesting all the diseases being placed in distant lands. In the other hymn (1.125) the poet is suffering from poison and is praying for relief. There are clear references to the bad effects of poison and prayers for being saved from the fatal effects of the same. Many of the yks and also portions from the hymns of Agastya are difficult and unintelligible. Ludwig, Max Muller, Grassman, Geldner and Thieme have made efforts to interpret these hymns and explain them in a satisfactory manner. The hymn that is proposed to be discussed here, (1.179) being a dialogue between Agastya and his wife Lopamudrā belongs to this class of difficult hymns,
Almost everyone who has made an effort to understand this hymn have come across some sort of obscurity here or there. To Oldenberg, the hymn is an 'akhyāna' of which the prose portions which formed both the connecting and explanatory links have been lost, a view which it seems difficult to be accepted. Hillebrandt and Schroeder are of the view that we have here a 'culture drama'. Particularly wrong is the suggestion that Lopāmudrā is an old courtezan, 'eine alternde Hetare,' since the word patnih' occurs not once but twice in the hymn itself (2.3). Thieme appears to regard the hymn as giving us the legend-magic in the manner of the Viśvāmitra-nadi-samvāda (II1.33) or the Saramā-paņi-samvāda (X.108). The reference to Soma indicates the magical character of the hymn and in this respect the hymn is seen to possess almost a parallel construction. The "Sarama-pani' hymn is a spell for the recovery of the lost or stolen cows while the 'Viśvāmitra-nadi' hymn is a spell for the protection of the bulls from the rivers in spate and similarly this Agastya-Lopāmudrā hymn is a

Page #51

42
The Hymn of Agastya and Lopamudra (1. 179)
a
spell for the atonement for the loss or violation of the vows of chastity and purity. To Thieme the speech of the Brahmacarin or the student of Agastya appears to refer to the main item of the hymn and the rest is only the background and the result. To some the hymn is an erotic slang' and has improper expressions. M. Bergaigne is of the view that the hymn has mystical and spiritual significance. He regards Agastya as identifiable with the celestial Soma and the wtfe Lopamudra as identifiable with 'ardent, fervent Prayer'. The hymn according to him, narrates the success of a fervent prayer after a long endeavour, in drawing down the Soma from his secret dwelling place, Bergaigne is possibly influenced by the sudden and somewhat unexpected reference to the Soma (5). The main objection against this view of Bergaigne is that nowhere in the entire Rgveda is Agastya the Soma or Lopamudra, the prayer.
Griffith, Wilson and others who follow Sayana regard the hymns as a dialogue between the Sage Agastya and Lopamudra, his wife with a verse spoken by a Brahmacarin who is a student of Agastya and who has overheard the conversation of the couple, Griffith introduces the hymn as follows: The deified object of this hymn is said to be Rati or Love, and its Rishis or authors are Lopamudra, Agastya, and a disciple. Lopamudra is represented as inviting the caresses of her aged husband Agastya, and complaining of his coldness and neglect. This is given in the two opening verses. Agastya responds in the third verse as well as in the half of the fourth; in the second half of the fourth stanza the poet or the disciple briefly tells the result of the dialogue. The verse that follows, that is the fifth, is supposed to be spoken by a disciple of Agastya who has overheard the conversation, but its connection with the rest of the hymn is not very apparent.
The Bṛhaddevata arrangement of these verses in the hymn is as follows. With the first two stanzas Lopamudra expresses her purpose and then Agastya, desiring to enjoy himself, satisfied her with the following two verses, namely the third and the fourth. The disciple of Agastya becoming aware by austerity of the whole condition of these two desiring to enjoy themselves, but thinking that he had committed a sin (enas) in listening sang the last two verses, namely the fifth and the sixth. The end of the entire episode is that the preceptor and his wife lauding and embracing him kissed him on the head, and smiling both of them said to him 'you are sinless, son'. It will be easily seen that for this conclusion there is nothing in the hymn itself. Sayaṇa also assigns these verses to the different speakers in this very manner but there is not the conclusion given in the Brahddevata,
a
In opposition to the view of Von Schroeder who regards the hymn as view of P. S. Sastri
ritual drama of vegetation magic'
have the

we

Page #52

The Hymn of Agastya and Lopamudra (İ. 179)
43
(Dramatic fragments of the Rgveda. Bh. Vid. 16.2; 4. 34.) who tihnks that the bymn is a ballad of love and in the Rgveda we have many such ballads singing of different aspects of human love. This is so natural for the vedic poets also experienced aesthetic impulses. It is likely that these ballads have arisen out of their history, if by history we understand the facts of the past and the remarkable events in the life of a great person that is no more.
In view of all these different opinions about hymn, I would like to make another effort to understand it. I have made many departures in the understanding of the structure of the hymn as well as in the distribution of the verses among the speakers. There are a few important details which it is worthwhile to remember as these are given by the poet himself.
The sage Agastya was practising penance for a pretty long time and as a consequence had no meeting with his wife Lopāmudră. Thus in the very opening verse of the hymn, there is a reference to the many winters and nights, pūrviḥ śaradaḥ, doșă' and also to the age-inducing dawns, 'uşasah jarayantih'. There is also a clear reference to the fact of getting old and losing the granduer and vigour of the body in 'mināti śriyam jarima tanünām'. Agastya who has grown old is at the same time desirous of wealth and progeny, 'prajām apatyam balam icchamānah'(6) and perhaps the defence of this fact appears to have been attempted in "pulukamo hi martyah'(5), a man has several desires. The conclusion of the hymn clearly states that Agastya had both the desires, love for a woman and the desire for wealth, truly and very properly satisfied and fulfilled. The sage given to penance is not required to give up his religious life, ascetism, and yet he could as observed in the concluding line of the hymn, follow the house-holder's life, “ubhau varnau îşih ugraḥ pupoşa'. With the life of sex, his truth was unimpaired. The sage is Agastya and the lady is Lopamudrā (4. 6) and their relation is that of a husband and wife as stated in ‘patnih vrşano jagamyuh' (1) and 'palnih vrşabhih jagamyuh' in the immediately next verse (2). The entire tone of the hymn to me suggests that one of the two was not willing for the union, for obtaining the pleasures of love and has denied this embrace to the other party for a pretty long time. Theirs has been a life of purity chastity, of ascetism. It is therefore clear that the request for such an embrace should come from one very eager to have it and who has been denied it while the request, the anunaya, to use a classical phrase, could be of the other member who has all the while denied the pleasure. The hymn indicates that the unwilling party has now relented and the request has been granted (4). The union is indicated very clealy in 'dhiram adhira dhayati svasantam.' The conclusion is the fulfillment of the desires of Agastya (6). Viewed in this light the sequence in the structure of the hymn can be constructed as (i) A request for an embrace, (ii) followed by an Union,

Page #53

44
The Hymn of Agastya and Lopamudra (1. 179)
(iii) and lastly the Conclusion which gives the Fulfillment. If it is a dialogue, it is between Agastya and Lopāmudrā who are the characters involved in this incident described in the hymn.
According to Sayaņa it is Lopamudrā who speaks the first two verses and therefore makes the Request seeking union, Agastya speaks the next two verses and relents. The last two verses are spoken by the disciple of Agastya who has obviously overheard the amorous conversation of the couple and has consequently a sense of guilt. He repents and desires to atone for the sin involved. It is indeed, difficult to imagine why the disciple of the sage should have been brought in this context at all, though the naturalness in having a student in the hermitage, an antevāsin, cannot be denied in the context of an ancient Indian sage. At best, the last verse could be taken as a conclusion of the poet wishing to round off his narrative. It must be remembered in this context that it is not unusual for poets and the speakers to refer to themselves in the third person by name. In the Rgveda we have Vámadeva referring to himself in this manner in 'bhuvo avilā vamadeyasya dhinam' (IV.16.18.) so also Vasiştha ia (VII.88.1) 'matim vasiştha milhuse bharasva'. It would therefore be not altogether un-Vedic to suggest that this verse could be spoken by Agastya himself and the occurrence of his name need not point to a different speaker. It is really unnecessary to think of here either of the disciple or of the poet. If this be correct then the speaker of the preceeding verse automatically becomes Agastya himself and here too there is no necessity of thinking of somebody else. To Thiene, however, this verse is spoken by the bachelor disciple of the sage and forms the real kernal of the hymn and the rest is only a prelude and a sequel. To him the hymn is a hymn of atonement having magical character. Griffith also con. siders that the connection of the verse of the disciple with the rest of the hymn is not very apparent, I am inclined to think that the verse in ques. tion can fit in the hymn but not its speaker as is taken by tradition. I mean the student of the sage.
I would like to read the present hymn in the light of the account of the Vanaparva of the Mahābhārata (96-99, Gorakhpur edition) where we have a full account of Agastya and Lopā mudrā. According to this account sage Agastya was bachelor for a a long time and was without any issue, a male child to continue his line and to perform the necessary śruddha rites for his ancestors as well as for himself. Once, on a outing in the forest he saw his ancestors hanging in a ditch with their hands downwards. When Agastya asked them the cause of this lamentable condition of theirs they explained to him that since he had not raised any issue to offer them the "śrāddha' etc. they had to remain so and it was the birth of an issue to him in which lay their release and movement to the proper worlds.

Page #54

The Hymn of Agastya and Lopamudrā (1. 179)
45
Agastya promised them to do the needful in the matter and finally while looking out for a suitable bride asked the hand of Lopāmudrā who was the daughter of the King of the Vidarbha country. The King was unwilling but the fair Lopamudrā persuaded him to grant to wishes of Agastya. After the marriage at the words of Agastya, Lopamudrā discarded her costly dress and ornaments and wearing bark garments accompanied him to his place to follow the holy life. We are told of this couple:
tataḥ cirāni jagraha valkalani ajinānica / samanavratacar ya ca babhūva ayatalocuna // gangūdvaram athāgamya bhagavon rșisattama! / ugram ütişthata tapaḥ saha palnya anukülayā' // (97.10-11)
It was once when Agastya saw his wife pure and holy, after her bath shining with a rare lustre and beauty, that he invited her for the pleasure of love.
tato bahutithe kale lopamudra visāmpate / ta pasa dyotitam snatam dadarśa bhagavān rșih 11 (97.13)
and then
sa tasyah paricärena śaucena ca damena ca/ śriyä rūpeṇa ca prito maithunaya ajuhāva tām // (97.14)
To this invitation of Agastya, Lopamudrā gave a 'no' and asked the sage to work for securing wealth. She granted that the husband and wife came together to procreate; but added that she would not accept his invitation and approach him while he continued to remain void of wealth. She observed :
'icchami tvam sragviņam ca bhüşanaih ca vibhuşitam / upasartum yathakamam divyabharaṇabhușita 11 (97.18)
On Agastya's pleading that an effort to secure wealth would mean loss of 'lapas', his penance Lopāmudrā observes :
'na ca anytha aham icchami tvam upaitum kathañcana na ca api dharmam icchumi viloptum te kathañcana // evam tu me yathökumam sampadayitum arhasi' (97.23b, 24)
Agastya consents to collect wealth and proceeds to do so and meets Śrutarvarn, Bradhnaśva, Trasadasyu and finally Ilvala and collects wealth. He destroys Ilvala. On his return Lopamudrā consents to their union. She observes :
'krtavunasi tat sarvam bhagarun mama känkṣitam
utpadaya sakınmahyam apatyam viryavattaram // (99.19) and to them is born Drdhasyu, who in his turn begets Idhmavāba. Such is the Mahābhārata account of the Agastya-Lopamudrä episode. Here

Page #55

46
The Hymn of Agastya and Lopamudra (1. 179)
are a few interesting details to be noticed in this account, which it would be worth our while to remember wbile making an effort to interpret the hymn in the Rgveda. We learn here, firstly that the couple Agastya and Lopāmudra are leading a holy and chaste life for a long time, bahutithi kala' (97.13). Secondly it is Agastya who is inviting Lopamudrā for the pleasure of love, 'pritah maithunaya ajuhava tam'. (97.14). Thirdly, Lopāmudrā puts a condition of securing adequate wealth, for their union, “anyatha no patişthe yam cirakașa yavasini' (97.19). Fourthly, Agastya collects wealth according to the wishes of Lopāmudrā,'krtavanasi tat sarvam bhagavan mama kankṣitam' (99.19). Fifthly, Lopāmudrā does not wish that Agastya should lose holy life and penance, 'na capi dharmamicchami viloptum te kathañcana' (97,23), since Agestya is very keen on retaining intact his pedance and holy life, ‘yathu tu me na naśyeta tapah tanmum pracodaya' (27.22). After Agastya's bringing wealth Lopamudrā relents and a son is born to them. Taking some liberty we might put it that Agastya was keen on continuing his ascetic life in spite of the temptation while Lopāmudrā wanted him to lead the life of a 'grhastha-asramin' by collecting wealth and property. It was problem whether asceticism could harmoniously go with a sexuality and desires.
With these details in our minds let us turn to the hymn under our discussion here. From the hymn we are able to collect the following details. Firstly, there is a long period of very arduous life, pūrviḥ saradaḥ, doşah vastoruşasah jarayantih' 11). Secondly, there is a reference to the foregoers, “pūrve stasapaḥ who have not reached their end, 'na hi antam apuh' (2). Thirdly, there is an exhortation for collection of wealth, of means to happiness and to the conquest of struggles and enjoyment of the fruits of victory
jayāva satanitham ajim', 'yiśyā it sprdho abhyaśnavāva,''samyanca mithunavabhyajava.' (3). Fourthly, the invitation for union is accepted 'dhiram adhira dhayati śyasantam' (4). Fiftbly, there is a defence for the life of desires in that it is really human to desire, "pulukamo hi martyaḥ (5). Sixthly, Agastya has been said to have acquired 'praja, a patya, and bala' when he toiled hard, khanamanah khanitraih' (6). The great and fierce sage, Sugraḥ rșih thus fulfilled his two longings, succeeded in practising the two stages, of dharma and kama 'ubhau varnau pupoșa' (6).
It is very easy to see that the two accounts of the Rgveda and of the Mahabharata virtually are in agreement in all heir essential details. In view of this agreement almost bordering on identity, it is difficult to imagine that the Epic account has introduced violent changes in the Rgvedic narration. If there be some truth in this assertion, then the Rgvedic hymn needs to be fresbly interpreted. It may be necessary while doing this task, to disregard the suggestions of Sāyana altogether, if they put a great strain on our imagination or seem to do violence to this agreed account of

Page #56

The Hymn of Agostya and Lopämndra (1. 179)
47
the Rgveda and the Epic. The hymn will have to be reconstructed in the light of this information from the Mahabharata.
Accordingly our reconstructed hymn would stand as under, especially in the matter of speakers, According to me, the first two verses are spoken by Agastya. The first verse is an invitation while the second one gives perhaps the background of his new mood. The third verse is spoken by Lopamudrā which is both an exhortation to collect wealth and an assurance that he will not in any way lose his purity and penance for both are protected by gods. The next two verses, the fourth and the fifth, are spoken by Agastya again. The last verse is conclusion and one can take here the poet rounding off his narration describing the successful life of Agastya who effected a harmonious combination of the two different modes of life and for whom the blessings of the gods came true in offering him the fulfilment of his prayers. In this construction I find it difficult to find any place for the disciple of Agastya. The hymn is a dialogue between the husband and the wise. The overbearing of the conversation is as a matter of fact unwarranted, unnecessary and unexpected. The ascription of the verse to a character suppossed to have committed a sin on the basis of the words, yat sīmügamascakrmu (5) must have been later and in all proba. bility carried out under ritualistic inspiration. If the hymn is taken as it is, it reveals no such intrusion by any third character.
I might refer to an element which I consider as significant. The Bșhaddevatā (IV. 57-60) gives a very brief summary of the hymn under discussion. This text also introduces the Brahmacārin but in doing so it creates a clumsy situation. The Brahmacārin has not overheard the conver. sation of the couple-which indeed could be very bad manners and therefore a sin, 'enah'; but he knew all this talk and their intention through his penance, 'viditva tapasz sarvam tayoḥ bhuvam riramsatoh, śrutvainaḥ krtavūnasmi' (IV. 59). Why and how his holy powers, penance, should have worked in this direction and in that case why should he have regarded biniself a sinner is difficult to follow. But from my point of view of greater importance is the introduction which the Brhaddevatā gives for this dialogue. It observes :
tau snutăm îşih bhāryām lopamudram yasasvinim! upajalpitum ärebhe rahaksamyogakumyayā // (IV. 57)
So it is Agastya who had the desire in him and who began the conversation. Though there is a difference in the detail supplied by the Brhaddevatā and the Mahābhārata yet it could be said that there is essential agreement between the two accounts. The Bșhaddevatā is seen to observe 'stau snatam' while the Mahābhārata observes 'ta pasa d yotitām snatam dadarśa bhagavan rșih. But the two accounts in saying that it was Agastya who upajal pitum arebhe rahaḥsamyogakāmyaya' as the Bșhaddevatā

Page #57

48
The Hymn of Agastya and Lopamudra (I. 179)
puts it and prito maithunāya ajuhava tam' as the Epic puts it, agree in assigning the initiative to Agastya. As I see it, the logical conclusion of such a position would be to assign the opening verses of the conversation to the sage. There is nothing in the hymn as it stands, to indicate the declaration of the innocence of the Brahmacārin by Agastya and Lopāmudra which the Brhaddevatā describes, The Anukramanikā also brings in this Brahmacārin. The Epic however makes no mention of this Brahmacärin The hymn also would in its 'agastyaḥ prajam apatyam balam icchamanah' (6) appear to depict the sage as having the desires and the initiative.
All this discussion will incidentally indicate that the view of Von Schroeder that this hymn refers to an old ritual for ensuring the fertility of the fields when the corn has been cut and that in this hymn Lopamudrā means that which has the seal (mudra) of disappearance (lopa) upon it is something which cannot be accepted. If the root 'mud' refers to joy of the couple, for we have 'anyena mat pramudah kal payasva' (X.10.12) and 'strībhiḥ saha modamanah (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa XIV. 7.1.14). then at best Lopamudrā might suggest a lady under a vow renouncing the joy of married life' - a sense that is very much suggested by the Mahābhārata. It is difficult to say whether it was a ritual drama, or a literary drama that is reflected in this interesting hymn. What can safely be asserted that here we have a compact neat finished product of Vedic poetical art, dealing with homan desires and with human love, with the desire of man for the pleasure of the body, for material pleasure and his innate will for a pure and holy life. The hymn in its own way suggests the very desirable combination of the two kinds of life, the asceticism and of the common man, a harmonious combinations of the ends of human life, with a view to realising them all. "ugrah ubhau varnau puposa' can be, as a matter fact, taken to be the earliest reference to the concept of the puruşarthas'. This hymn then so far as I see, is a perfact Rgvedic song dealing with the popular theme of asceticism and householder's life and I proceed to translate and expiain it.
RV.1.179. Text, Translation, Notes. Rși : Agastya Maitrāvaruņi; Deity : Rati, Metre : Tristup; 5 Bịhati. pūrviraham saradaḥ śaśramūnā doşā vastoruşaso jarayantih / minati śriyam jarima tanünümapyū nu patnirvşşano jagamyuh // 1
I have been through all these autumns past, toiling nights and days and through age-inducing dawns. Old age is harming the glory of the limbs. Will not then now, husbands be united with the wives ?
('aham' according to Sāyaṇa and many indicates Lopamudrā, but I take it as standing for Agastya whom I regard to be the speaker here. Sāyana

Page #58

The Hymn of Agastya and Lopāmudra (1. 179)
connects 'saśramāna' fem. sing. as going with 'aham' in the sense of Lopāmudrā; but I take it as a transferred epithet going with doşa', hence the translation, "toiling nights' indicating the hard life of Agastya spent in ascetic pursuits. In this sense it would be a plural and would have a "visarga' but that has disappeared in view of the soft element in doşa' tbat has followed. The only difficulty against this proposed way of taking it is that the Pada patha does not show the 'visarga' as it does in tha case of dosa. Further, an argument in favour of this way of taking the construction is that it balances the construction in "uşasah jarayantih' or also in 'pūrvih šaradah'. The transferred epithet construction is not a feat beyond the capacity of the Vedic language. That it is Agastya who began this conversation is indicated by the Brhaddevatā 'lopāmudrām paśasvinīm upajal. pitum ürebhe rahaḥsamyogakāmyaya' (IV. 57) and the Mahabhārata 'sa prito maithunayız ajuhāva tõm' (III. 97.14). 'tanūnam' is ‘angānām' as is explained by Sayana and just as it refers to the sage himself, it also refers to the person addressed, Lopāmudrā. The argument is made to secure her consent. The construction «patnih vrşanah jagamyuh' is also reflected in patnih vrşabhih jagamyuk' in the next verse (2). I render these words as 'let wives approach the husbands'. It is Agastya who is persuading Lopamudrā to approach him. “Api nu' reflect an earnest request, as if saying 'will not even now wives approach their husbands.' The Mahābhārata informs us how Lopamudrā had not allowed Agastya to approach her. The three significant words of the hymn, 'shivering winters, toiling nights and days and age-inducing dawns' and the long period indicated by them is summarised in the Mahābhārata in a single phrase "tato bahutithe kāle'. This is the dharma' or 'ta pas' aspect of Agastya's life, 'kāma' being the next to be considered (4)
ye ciddhi pūrva siasa pa asan tsakam devebhiravadannţtāni / te cidavāsurnahyantamāpuḥ samā nu patnīr vrşabhirjagamyuḥ 11 2
Those who were indeed the former obtainers of truth, bad spoken truth with the gods. They are separated but have not reached the end. Let even now wives be united with the husbands.
('rtasāpaḥ' is explained by Sāyaṇa as 'satyasya a payitāraḥ vyāpnuvānā maharşayah' and is rendered by Griffith as 'Jaw-fulfillers.' These 'ytasāpaḥ' are
pūrve' earlier ones, antecedent in time, and had not only obtained truth for themselves but had conversed with the gods about it, 'devebhiḥ sākam rtani avadan'. Who are these ? According to Sāyaṇa, these are the ancient sages who led a holy life of celibacy, 'brahmacarya' and also 'shed their semen' both by themselves and in union with a woman but in spite of this 'sin', a moral lapse, they did rend' their holy life, this act did mean violating the life of purity and chastity. Thus 'ava asuh' is taken to mean the shedding

Page #59

The Hymn of Agastya and Lopamudra (I. 179)
of semen, 'avaksi panti retaḥ' and 'antam apuḥ' is taken to mean 'brahmacaryadeḥ antam prapnuvan.' This verse is spoken by Lopamudra according to Sayaṇa, hence it is an argument made by her in her attempt to persuade Agastya who is careful to guard his chastity as perfectly as he can. The former sages, Lopamudra argues to win over Agastya, did not lose their chastity and so Agastya could very well follow them. Theime reads in this verse the futility of the holy life brought home to Agastya by Lopamudra. Lopamudrā observes here that the poets of former generations who had realised truth and who had even conversed with the gods about truth and had proclaimed truth in the manner of gods, observed a life of chastity but even they did cease because they did not come to the end of truth. It is quite possible to dedicate one's life to the service of truth but this striving for perfect spirituality rarely succeeds. Hence Agastya did better concede to her request. I am not inclined to agree to this way of reading this verse, though it must be conceded that once Lopamudra is accepted as the speaker here, there appears to be no other way to interpret. But as the things stand, they are perfectly vague. Who are these "rtasapaḥ purve'? of what did not they reach the end, na antam apuḥ'?
50
I regard Agastya as the speaker, and the verse gives the background of the proposal by Agastya after all these days of his struggles for a life of chastity. These 'purve ṛtasapaḥ' are the ancestors, 'pitarah' of Agastya (Mbh. III. 96.14) who were hanging with heads downwards in a ditch and whom he saw. We are told :
agastyaḥ capi bhagavan etasmin kala eva tu |
pitṛn dadarsa garte vai lambamānāṇadhomukhan || (96.14)
They were 'brahmavādinaḥ' (96.15), ṛtasapaḥ as the hymn puts it and told Agastya that they were so hanging because he had not raised any issue :
kimartham ceha lambadhvam garte yuyam adhomukhaḥ | santanahetoriti te pratyachuḥ brahmavadinah II (96.15)
On hearing this from his ancestors Agastya observed :
sa tan uvaca tejasvi satyadharmaparāyaṇaḥ |
karişye pitaraḥ kamam vyeto vo manaso jvaraḥ if (96.18)
In 'ṛtasupaḥ' and 'sakam devebhiḥ avadan ṛtani' Agastya describes the spiritual greatness and distinction of his ancestors which the Epic brings out in a single phrase, 'brahmavadinah. But in spite of this their religious and spiritual merit they did not obtain, reach, 'na hi antam apuḥ', 'the end of existence' even when they were departed separated, 'ava asuḥ'. In the Mahabharata the 'pitaras' tell Agastya
yadi no janayethaḥ Ivam agastya apatyam uttamam 1.
syat na asmat nirayāt mokṣaḥ tvam ca putra āṛnuyā gatin: | (96.1).

Page #60

The 1/ymn of Agastya and Lopamudra (I. 179)
51
It is this their existence that is possibly referred to here in 'te cid avūsuh' in the hymn. 'na hi antam upuh' therefore refers to their not meeting with the final end which a person ought to do after departing. It is clear that between 'le cidavāsuh na hi antam āpuh' a contrast, an opposition, an unexpected result is indicated. A result that should have followed in a natural course has not followed. And further tbis result should have been a logical consequence of their chaste life iadicated in 'rtas pah' and in 'sākam devebhih avadan Țtāni.' This obtaining of the final end is dependant on Agastya raising a male issue, hence the request in the hymn 'patnih vrşano jagamyuh' (1) and in patnih vrşabhiḥ sam jagamyuh' (2). I feel there to be a certain relation between the 'plasāpaḥ' and 'sākam devebhih avadan tani' of the hymn and the 'brahmavādinah' of the Epic, between 'antam apuh' of the hymn and 'apnuya gatim' of the Epic; between 'te cid ava usuh' of the hymn aud "lambamänah ad homukhūh of the Epic; between 'karişye kanam' of the Epic and 'ma kama agan of the hymn in the next verse (4); between 'rsih ugrah' of the hymn and 'ugram atisthata tapah' of the Epic for I do not consider such relation between ideas and phraseology to be purely accidental. It is likely that the hieratic and the secular traditions are following one earlier account available to them, Griffith's rendering they have decided but have not accomplished' of 'te cidavusuh na hi antam apuk does not throw much light on the meaning. Even if Sayana's explanation is accepted it would be an argument by Agastya for taking recourse to a life of married joy. It is more natural for Agastya to refer to the other earlier sage than for Lopāmudra to do so.)
na mrşu śrāntam yadavanti devāḥ visvā it sprdho abhyaśnavāva / jayavedatra satanithamajim yat samyancā mithunavabhyajāva / 3
That is not toiled in vain what the gods protect. We two shall e together all the desires. Here shall, we two together conquer, in the struggle wealth that leads to a hundred enjoyments. Properly united shall we two together drive towards it.
(Lopāmudrā speaks in reply to the request by Agastya in the two foregoing verses. Before relenting she desires them to earn satanitha' which Sāyaṇa renders as “a parimita-bhoga-prapti-sadhanam' obviously referring to wealth. She is seen to use 'jayava' we both obtain it; ajava' we will both drive towards, 'abhi', this wealth which will bring about the enjoyment of all our desires, visva it sprdhah.' She wants to enjoy and have all her desires fulfilled, hence "abhyaśnuvāva,' we will together enjoy. With all this expression of desires on the part of Lopamudra can be compared what she has to say in the Mahabhārata:
yatha pitfgļhe vi pra prāsade śayanam mama / tathāvidhe tvam sayane mām upaitum iha arhasi //

Page #61

The Hymn of Agastya and Lopamudra (1. 179)
icchāmi tvām sragvinam ca bhūsanaiḥ ca vibhūşitam, upasartum yathakāmam divyabharaṇabhūsita // anyatha nopatistheyam cirakasāyaväsini // naivā pavitro vi prarse bhusano 'yam kathamcana 1 (97.17-19)
Lopamudrā clearly points out that the bhūsana is not a pavitra and it is perbaps this very idea that is reflected here in her 'na mrşā śrantam yad avanti devaḥ-an observation which suggests many things. Even if Agastya were now to take to the worldly life, a life of desires and fulfillments, he would not lose his chastity which has been so long protected by the gods; bis dharma' would be in no way impaired by his 'käma'. This is an idea tbat occurs in the Mahābhārata where Lopamudrā says that she does not wish that Agastya should lose any part of his dharma' while trying to secure the wealth she needs. When Agastya points out the want of wealth at his place she observes :
asosi tapasā sarvam samāhartum ta podhana / kşanena jivaloke yad vasu kimcana vid yate (97.21)
While urging him to use his 'tapas' to produce wealth, she is also quick to add
na capi dharmam icchāmi viloptum te kathańcana | evam tu me yathakamam sampadayitum arhasi /(97,24)
An effort to obtain wealth being altogether worldly pursuit might constitute a danger to his penance and so Agastya observes :
evametat yatha attha tvam tapovyayakaram tu tat / yatha tu me na naśyeta tapaḥ tan mam pracodaya // (97.22)
It is this fear of Agastya that is being allayed in 'na mrşā śräntam yad aranli devah' and the words following regarding enjoyment of all the desires, 'viśvā sprdhaḥ' are an exhortation to collect the required wealth. The words of Lopamudra 'al pävašistaḥ kal’oyam stormania (23) might call to one's mind the Bșhaddevatā. stau snātām rșirbhāryām lopamudram yaśasvinim'. (IV.57). Thieme thinks that in 'satānitha aji' are referred the psychological struggles against a life of temptation. But this does not seem likely since in yiśvā sprdhah' and 'mithuna abhyajāva' the reference obviously is to the many worldly desires and to a married lise with its essence in cooperative life of the couple. To Thieme it appears that it is Agastya who is defending his present mode of life and he does not give in easily. Suspense and delay create tension, a fact which the Vedic poets cleverly use; in the Visvämitra and the Rivers dialogoue the Rivers too do not consent readily and in the Saramā Pani case the Panis try to win her over by various offers. Agastya seems to say according to Tbieme, all is not vain and my struggle against the wishes of flesh and sex-control will be useful and we two all these days have been successful and so shall we be in times to come. This defence is necessary

Page #62

The Hymn of Agastya and Lopāmudra (1. 179)
for in the preceeding verse, which is spoken by Lopamudrā according to Thieme, is an argument pointing out the futility of asceticism, for the earlier poets did dot reach the end, 'na hi antam āpuḥ.' If Lopāmudrā has been 'saśramaņā' so bas Agastya been 'sränta'. Agastya wants Lopāmudrā to carry on the struggle against Kāma, the villain who attacks in many forms and new ways, He is speaking of spiritual conquests in 'jayāva'. The war terminology has been deliberately and appropriately used.)
nadas ya mā rudhataḥ kama ugannita ajāto amutaḥ kutascit / lopamudra vrşanam ni rinati dhiramadhira dhayati śvasantam // 4
To me roaring and obstructing, Desire produced from worldly surroundings here or from beyond somewhere, has overcome. Lopamudra embraces her husband. The eager one embraces the controlled one, panting with passion.
(Agastya picks up the war terminology used by Lopamudra in the pre. ceeding verse. He has been all these days fighting with kama' and persuing the life of 'dharma'. He was victorious all these days and therefore was a roaring warrior obstructing the entry and the onslought of 'Kama'. But now he has been overcome by the Kama who has entered him and taken possession of him. In so many words he acknowledges defeat and consents to do what Lopamudrā wants him to do. The first line is spoken by Agastya while the second line is from the poet giving us the result. 'nadasya' and Srudhatah' roaring and obstructing - genetive absolutes showing the scant coustesy shown by Kama to his fighting spirit. 'ita, amutaḥ, kutaścit shows the surprising attack from unknown and unexpected quarters. Agastya is about to end his life of denial, continence and to take up a new life of desires, hence is somewhat apologetic in his tone. The consequence of this frank and open admission of defeat by Agastya is relenting of Lopamudrā as narrated in the second line. I také svasantam' as 'panting with passion' and 'dhiram' as suggesting his holy life, wisdom and stature. The pbrase "adhira' in the context of Lopāmudrã is a beautiful one suggesting the woman's total surrender to the husband out of deep love and also out of a sense of duty. The word "vrsanam' indicates the husband as it does in the first and the second verse. There is nothing of erotic slang here. The Mahābhārata tells us that desire overcame Agastya when he saw the beauty of Lopāmudrā after her bath, 'snatam dadarśa'. It is not necessary to read 'adhīrā' as 'unwise' in the context of Lopamudrā who has tempted her husband, as Thieme does. “adhira' to me would indicate that psychological state of a women about to meet her husband for the first time, fear, curiosity, eagerness, love and respect. Sāyaṇa understands 'nadasya' in the sense of one meditating and "rudhatah' as one controlling, checking - in any case representing Agastya's effort to fight and keep off Kāma. Sāyaṇa takes the second line also as

Page #63

54
The Hymn of Agastya ond Lopamudra (1. 179)
spoken by Agastya and is therefore seen interpreting 'risati' and 'dhayati' as 'rinatu' and 'upabhunktām' respectively.
It is interesting to note that Durga while commenting on the Nirukta 'Tșih nado bhavati' etc. (V. 2) which refers to the present verse ascribes to Lopāmudrā, 'lopamudrāyā iyumşşam, sābravidagastyam bhartāramabhi pretya'. Nada according to Durga would mean Agastya and Lopamudrā wonders whether the desire has been in her aroused, in her own person or with reference to Agastya. It is also interesting to note that Durga observes about Lopāmudra, 'evam vila pamānā komartā jopamudrā rājarşi putrika' thus making Lopamudra a princess, rājarșikanyaka after the Mababharata account. Durga renders 'dhiram' as 'brahmacarye sthirabudinim' and 'adhirä' as 'samkşubdhasarvendriyagrāmā.' This will only indicate as to how the hymn has been a problem).
imam nu somamantito hrtsu pitamupa bruve / yat simagascakrma tat su mrlalu pulukāmo hi martyah !| 5
I pray this Soma, nearest to us, drunk in our hearts. May he kindly forgive completely whatever sin we have committed. Of various desires is the mortal.
(Tradition is fairly unanimous in ascribing this įk to the student of Agastya who has overheard the conversation of the the couple. He has a sense of guilt and therefore wants an atonement for the same. According to Sayana this and the next verse is spoken by the disciple. He introduces ‘atha anayoh dampatyoḥ sambhogasamlapam śrütvii tat prayaścīttam cikirşuḥ uttarabhyāmāha'. Saunka in the Rgvidbana (1.147) recommends these two yks for silent meditation and recitation for freedom from sins. In some manuscripts Durga while commeating on the word 'pulukama' and the present verse is seen observing gastya-lopamudrāsañade antevosi brahmacāri imam saumim brhatim apasyar'. Sayana adds that the verse could be interpreted with reference to the Moon ayam mantraḥ candrapurah vyukhyeyaḥ manasaḥ abhimanitvät ca tasya papasya api manasyeva sambhavitatvät.'
All these dicussion really seems unnecessary since there is as a matter of fact no place for the 'antevasi' to appear in this dialogue. This seems to be an early ritualistic taking over of the couple!. Otherwise it would be difficult to explain the almost uniform tradition about the 'anteväsin' and his atonement. To Thieme this fact appears to be the kernal of the song, which to me is an overstatement. We need cot look upon the entire hymn as having any magical chaiacter in it. This present verse can very well be spoken by Agastya himself - and I take it as that - and so it must have been in the beginning, in any case, before the priestiy craft seized it for its own purposes. Agastya has been all these days an ascetic leading a life of restrain and chastity and had controlled his desires. He has now decided to

Page #64

The Hymn of Agastya and Lopimudra (I. 179)
follow the lead of 'kama' that had entered him. He is conscious that a man of varied desires is prone to sins. Durga rightly points out 'pulukamo hi bahukamo hi martyaḥ, sa baukāmatvāt manuṣyasvābhāvyāt avasyam agaḥ karoti.' So agaḥ' referred to by Agastya is the sin committed by him in changing over to the life of 'kama' and also to the sins that as a man of desires he would commit hereafter. In 'cakṛma' he is referring to himself as well as to Lopamudra. Soma that he has taken in, in large quantities is the symbol of purity and holy religious life. He therefore implores Soma to forgive him completely su mṛlatu'. He prays to Soma that is within him and the argument in 'pulukamo hi martyah' is very human. This is his excuse for his new life of work, wealth and love. Sayana's reference to 'sravanadosa' and the like lack conviction. This may be really a 'soliloquy' of Agastya after his first experience of love. If Soma is taken as the Moon, hṛtsu pitam' will have to be taken as hṛdayasthita' as Sayana points out.)
agastyaḥ khanamānaḥ khanitraiḥ prajāma patyam balamicchamanaḥ | uhhau vorṇavṛşirugraḥ puposa satya devesvasiso jagama || 6
Agastya, digging with the digging tools, desiring wealth, child and strength, developed both the types. From the gods he obtained his blessings true.
55
(To avoid tautology Sayaṇa cleverly takes 'praja' as being produced in plenty and frequently, 'prakarsena punaḥ punaḥ jāyamānām' going with wealth or 'phalam'. This agrees well with the 'viśvā it spṛdhah abhyaśnava' of an earlier verse (3). "apatyam' is that which prevents a fall, 'kulasya apatanasadhanam' and it has a particular relevance here in the context of the background of the episode as furnished by the Mahabharata account according to which Agastya's ancestors had not reached the end and were hanging head downwards in a 'garta' and also in context of 'purve ṛtasapaḥ na hi antamapuḥ' in the hymn (2), Balam is the usual 'strength' from wealth and penaance; for he still remains a mighty sage 'rsih ugrah' and this indicates that he has not renounced the life of penance and restrain altogether. He is following his first way of life also. Ubhau varnau' therefore would refer to his first way of life, the life of 'tapas' and the second way of life, the life of 'kama.' He, the mighty fierce sage nourished both the ways, 'ubhau varṇau pupoșa.' He succeeded in making both these ways truly fruitful and fulfilled their objectives. Sayana rightly explains ubhau varnau varṇaniyau akārau kamam ca tapasca' the two asramas' one might say. In his case the blessings of the gods came true; dharma, artha and kama all triumphed gloriously. 'deveşu' is really 'devehhyah' and 'jagama' is 'pra ptavan.' 'Khanamānaḥ khanitraiḥ' is only symbolic of the life of exertions which are necessary for producing pros-perity. The verse as it stands has no reference whatsoever to the idea of atonement. One would be justified in expecting such a reference, at least some

Page #65

56
The Hymn of Agastya and Lopamudra (1. 179)
remote indication, if this verse and the preceeding one were to have any magical powe:. Sāyaṇa taking the 'antevāsi' to be the speaker adds for the word 'agastyah' mad guruh which indeed is not necessary. It is Agastya himself who is the speaker here. One may however take the verse as a report by the poet like the second line of the fourth verse.)
There is thus much work of art to be seen in this hymn. Lopamudrā is no courtezan nor a symbol of anything else. The hymn to me at least represents earlier effort to combine dharma and kama and an argument for normal life. The complaint for old age, the very strenuous character of the life of denial and restraint, the womanly nature in longing for a fulfillment of all her desires, the frank admission of the weakness of flesh and of the man being but a creature of desires - all these are very cleverly delineated and the hymn is to be taken as an admirable piece of composition on the part of a Rgvedic poet. Its connection with 'vegetation magic' or 'a culture drama' or a 'mine' or 'magic for atonement seems to be a farfetched artificial one, and theories asserting such a relation do not carry much conviction. It is true that the different versions about the speakers and the hymn create an atmosphere of obscurity about the hymn; but if the account furnished by the Mahabharata is taken into consideration, many difficulties appear to be solved. The Nirukta and the commentary of Durga, the Brhaddevatā and the Mahābhārata throw welcome light on this hymn and I believe it to be much safer to walk in this light than to grope in sheer darkness. I know full well that against my way of reading the opening verses as being spoken to Lopamudra on the strength of the reading of the Brbaddevatā 'lopamudrām pašasvinīm' would be brought forth the alternative reading 'lopamudrā yasasvini' noted in some manuscripts. My only answer is I prefer to follow the reading accepted by Macdonell. To me the hymn is a sublime one and the struggle as shown between Agastya and Kāma with its essentially human conclusion has a charm of its own. The Buddha later fought a similar battle as indicated in 'nadasya rud hataḥ kama ajatah' (4) and the Buddha defeated Kāma or Māra. Agastya is too human and truly Vedic when he asserts 'pulukāmah hi martyah', a realisation which is the very basis of Vedic social and spiritual organisation.
So far I have been discussing the 'u pabrmhana' of the Rgveda by the Iti-- hāsa and the Purānas. I would like to take up for my discussion now an interesting case from the Itihasa, the Mahabharata, where it is the Rgveda that comes to our help in elucidating a difficult passage. I am referring to the praise of the Asvinau, ašvin-stuti by Upamanyu, a student of the sage Dhaumya. (Adiparvan. Pausya. II). The passage in question has been included in the Critical Edition of the Epic, hence, there could be no doubt about its antiquity and authenticity. Upamanyu has eaten the leaves

Page #66

The Hymn of Agastya and Lopamudra (I. 179)
57
of the Arka aud as a consequence has become blind and has fallen in a well, 'arka patrāņi bhakşayilva andhibhūtah asmi ataḥ kūpe patitah (55). Dhaumya, his teacher who has come there searcbiog him, asks him to praise the Asvins who are the divine physicians and therefore would restore his sight 'aśvinau stuhi, tau devabhișajau tvām cakşuşmantam kartārau'. Upon the advice from his teacher Upamanyu began his praise of the Aśvinau and the Mababbārata significantly adds, 'upamanyuḥ aśvinau stotum upaca. krame devāvasvinau vāgbhiḥ ìgbhiḥ (56). The words 'vägbhiḥ rgbhiḥ take us to the Rgveda, hence there would be nothing wrong if we refer to the Rgveda for an elucidation of the obscure passages in the hymn that follows. A glance at this passage in the Critical Edition will reveal how many times the Editor has used the wavy line' to indicate the uncertainty he feels about the text and the readings.
There is no doubt about the fact that the Epic composers of this Asvin-stuti have used the Rgveda as their source of inspiration. I will explain myself with a few illustrations. Thus here the Asvins are called *pra pūrvagau' and this phrase hails from the Vasiştba hymn (VII. 67.7) to the Aśvinau where the word 'pürvagatva' occurs. The words 'divyau su parnau are used by Purumi!ba and Ajamilha, sons of Subotra, to describe the Asvipau. (IV. 43.3). The other words having a Rgvedic colouring are 'citrabhānu' which Vasiştha ujes for Agni (VII. 9.3;12.1), Hiranyastupa for Savitr (1.35.4), Gștsamada for Agoi (I1.10.2), Nodhas for the Maruts (1.64.7) and so also Gotama (1.85.11). Again ‘gira va saṁsāmi' is but a reflection of 'gira jata iha stutaḥ' of Jamadagai Bhargava (IX 62.15). The words 'adhikşi pantau bhuvanani višva' have their original in the words of Darghatamas, 'adhikṣāyanti bhuvanāni visva' (I. 154.2). The Asvinau are futher spoken of as ‘hiranmayau sakunau', a phrase which is based on "hiranmayam sakunum' of Veda Bhrgu for Soma (IX. 86. 11) and on ‘hiranya pakşam sakunam' of Veda Bbārgava (X. 1236) for Vena Suparna. The Aśvinau are described as victorious and conquering in 'jayantau', a phrase that seems to sum up the description of their victorious chariot in 'vijayusya rathya yatam' of Bharadvāja, son of Brbaspati (VI. 62.7). The words 'adhivayantau asitam viväsvataḥ' and 'suvemau' seem to be based on vahistebhih viharanyasi tantum avavyayan asitam deva vasma' of Gotama Vāmadeva for Agni (IV. 13.4). In the description of the exploit of the Asvinau of liberating the vartika' from the clutches of a Suparna, we get the words 'grastum vartikam' which refer to the Rgvedic 'vartikām grasitām' (I. 112.8;X.39.13). The word “suparna' also in this context is Vedic and Sayanācārya explains it as 'vrkena'; Yāskācārya's explanation is vivrta. i votiskena suryena, vartikām uşasam'. Even the principal verb 'amuñcatam' is the Vedic Camuñcatam'. In the second half of this very verse occurs a reference to red cows in usattama ga aruņā udavahan' and we get in the

Page #67

58
The Hymn of Agastya and Lopamudra (I. 179)
Rgveda in the context of the Ușas 'vahanti simaruṇāso rusanto gāvaḥ'. (VI. 64.3) where the reference is obviously to the red rays that introduce the Usas. The 'suvṛta' appears to go with the car, the 'ratha' of the Asvinau, for we get in the Rgveda, rathena tricakrena suvṛta' (I. 118.2) a car which is "three wheeled and rolleth lightly' as Griffith renders it. Further, the words 'gharmam ukthyam' in the Epic are modelled on the Rgvedic idiom to be seen in phrases like 'gayatram ukthyam' (I. 38.14), 'ukthyam mantram' (I. 40.5), 'vājam ukthyam' (I. 48.12), vācaḥ ukthyam' (I. 83.3) piyuşam ukthyam' (II. 13.1), 'sumnam ukthyam' (IV. 53.2).
In matters of ideas also there has been a similar relation between the Rgveda ard the Epic passage. The idea expressed in the words:
şaştisca gavaḥ trisatasca dhenavaḥ ekam vatsam suvate tam duhanti' | is very clearly the one expressed by Dirghatamas în his 'atra sapta satani vimsatisca tasthuḥ' (I. 164.11) and in the Aitareya Brahmaņa sapta ca vai satani vimsatisca samvatsarasya ahorātrāḥ sa eşo'haḥ samanaḥ iti aranyakam' (3.2.1). The analogy of milking a cow' also occurs in the hymn by Dirghatamas (I. 164.26). The 'dvadaśaram cakram' also hails from this very hymn (I. 164.11). In the Epic, the Aśvinau are described as wearing a garland of the 'puşkaras' in 'srajam ca yam bibhṛthaḥ puşkarasya' and we have the Ṛgveda speaking of the Aśvinau as aśvinau puskarasraja' (X. 184.2). Similarly the idea in 'sadyo jato mataram atti garbhaḥ' has its Ṛgvedic counterpart in 'jāyamāno mātarā garbho atti' (X. 79.4). In the Epic we have a clear reference to the Rgvedic Vala episode in 'hitvā girim aśvinau gamuda carantau, tadvṛṣṭimanha prasthitau balasya', in which context the word 'dāsapatnīḥ' has an unmistakable Rgvedic umbra. The exploit is obviously of Indra in the Rgveda, but the Epic transfers it to the Aśvinau. The Aśvinau, here in the Epic passage, seem to have been brought into relation with the Sun, the Uṣas, Indra and the Samvatsara while their original trait of divine healers, devabhişajau' is in tact preserved. In this closer study reveals that the Epic passage has the Rgvedic material as its warf and woof.
manner a
This aspect helps us in interpreting the difficult passages in the Epic Aśvin-stuti. As a matter of fact, the entire passage is a very difficult one yet I will refer here only to two lines, in support of my thesis here. The Epic passage has a verse..
'grastām suparnasya balena vartikām amuñcatam aśvinau saubhagāya | tāvat suvṛttavanamanta māyayā vasattamā gā aruṇā udāvahan' ||
Here the first half is clear and it refers to the "vartika' exploit of the Aśvinau. The difficulty is about the second half, both in respect of its text as well as its meaning. The Critical Editor has given us almost a plethora of variants and has wavy line under the line we are
put a

Page #68

The Hymn of Agastya and Lopamudra (I. 179)
59
discussing. Which is the phenomenon referred to here ? Decision in that respect might in some way help us to fix the text and eke out some meaning.
In the Rgveda, it is seen that along with the exploit of the "vartika' is also mentioned another exploit of the Aśvinau, the exploit of turning the barren cow of Sayu into a milk-yielding one (VII 68. 8; X. 39. 13.). This cow of Sayu was barren, emaciated and milkless, adhenu staryam vişaktām', (1. 117.20). Will we read a reference here to this exploit ? The text in that case could be 'ta vatsavṛttau anamanta mayaya asattama ga aruṇaḥ udavahan', where the word 'asattama' can summarise the qualities mentioned in the Rgveda, 'adhenum', 'staryam' and 'viṣaktām.' The bad cow brought to the Asvinau, bent for the nourishment of its calf, 'vatsavṛttau anamanta', and this fact was the result of the extraordinary power, 'māyā' of the Asvins. The point to be noted here is that while the Rgveda speaks of only one cow, here the reference is to many as the plural used would indicate. Or shall we be guided here by the reference to the 'aruṇā ga' which in the Rgveda are connected with the Uṣas ? We get in the context of the Usas: 'vahanti sim arunaso rusanto gavaḥ subhagam urviya prathanam' (VI. 64 3) and we have the use of 'sam namanta' in the context of the Usas in 'samadhvaraya uṣaso namanta' (VII, 41.6). Putting together these two passages we get the idea of the red cows bending and introducing the Usas. The Asvinau too easily and happily rolling in their car are seen to introduce the Usas, hence perhaps we have in the passage: 'tavat suvṛttau anamanta māyaya asattamā (rusattamā ?) gā aruṇā udāvahan' the meaning being the two gods in their rolling car appear as the red cows appear on the horizon. This is not a proper place where I could enter into a discussion of the relative merits of the two different suggestions I have made here. My point here is only to show how a reference to the Rgveda is likely to help us in understanding obscure passages in the Itihasa and the Purana. The Veda and the Itihasa and the Purana form an interrelated group, hence they throw interesting light on each other.
favour of the 'upabṛmhana' in the
In this entire argument of mine in interpretation of the Vedic myths and the Akhyānas, I should not be taken to suggest or even to imply that there has been no change in them in the Veda, the Brahmanas, the Itihasa and the Purana and the Classical literature. Changes have affected these myths and the different Akhyānas undoubtedly, yet in them there is a certain continuity of kernel that ought not to be lost sight of. This material as I see passed through four stages.
The first phase could be called as 'mytho-poetic' where there is a mixture of fancy and external phenomenon. The elements of any historical or a

Page #69

60
The Hymn of Agastya and Lopamudra (I. 179)
realistic geographical setting are absent. Natural phenomenon or a historical happening evoking wonder and admiration are given in a symbolical language, in a poetical mode and in a mythological garb. Human characters have a certain faintness about them. In its second phase the matter became a 'ritualistic tale' narrated by a priest with the ritualistic jargon. The Purūravas Urvaśı tale is set in the Gandharva Agni Lore and the Saramā Pani story is set in the Abhiplava ceremony. Ritualistic, historical, geographical additions can be easily marked out in this phase. The Brāhmaṇa literature is seen representing this phase. The third phase is the 'religio-moralistic phase and is presented in the Itibāsa and the Purana literature where an attempt to rationalize and an attempt to deduce morals is evident. The Indra Ahalya episode as narrated in this literature is an illustration and many more could be cited. The last and the fourth phase is that of 'romance' to be seen in the Classical literature where artistic element play a dominant part. One may in this context refer to the Purüravas Urvasi story in the Vikramorvasiyam of Kalidāsa. The Vedic material usually passes through these four phases.
But in spite of these additions and accretions, the bare essential thread and some important details, often interesting missing links are preserved in the secular tradition, the Suta tradition, elements not preserved in the Rşi tradition. It is this element that is useful in the process of iu pabríhana' that I have been speaking of and arguing here. I need not add, I believe before I close, that caution and critical acumen would be of utmost importance in this process of the 'upabộrhana'. In the absence of these two very vital qualities the ‘upabțmhana' is likely to degenerate into a mere blind traditionalism, a danger to be avoided at all costs in the interpretation of the Rgveda. No real success in the task of the interpretation can be achieved either by a blind traditionalism or by letting fancy loose on its wings. Here, as elsewhere, 'golden mean' is the best rule.

Page #70

LALBHAI DALPATBHAI BHARATIYA SANSKRITI VIDYA MANDIR
L.D. SERIES S. No. Name of Publication
Price
Rs. *1. Sivāditya's Saptapadārthi, with a Commentary by Jinavardhana 41
Sūri. Editor : Dr. J.S, Jetly. (Publication year 1963) 2. Catalogue of Sanskrit and Prakrit Manuscripts : Munirāja 50/
Shri Punyavijayaji's Collection, Pt. I. Compiler: Munirāja
Shri Punyavijayaji. Editor : Pt. Ambalal P. Shah. (1963) *3. Vinayacandra's Kāvyaśikṣā. Editor : Dr. H.G. Shastri (1961) 10/Haribhadrasūri's Yogaśataka, with auto-commentary, along
5/with his Brahmasiddhantasamuccaya, Editor : Muniraja Shri
Punyavijayaji. (1965) 5. Catalogue of Sanskrit and Prakrit Manuscripts, Musirāja Shri
Punyavijayaji's Collection, pt. II.:Compiler: Muniraja Shri
Punyavijayaji. Editor : Pt. A.P. Shah. (1965) 6. Ratnaprabhasüri's Ratnākarāvatārika, part I. Editor : Pt.
8/Dalsukh Malvania. (1965) Jayadeva's Giragovinda, with king Mānānka's Commentary
Editor : Dr. V. M. Kulkarni. (1965) 8. Kavi Lāvanyasamaya's Nemirangaratnākarachanda. Editor : 6/
Dr. S. Jesalpura. (1965) 9. The Natyadarpaņa of Rāmacandra and Gunacandra : A Critical 30/
study : By Dr. K.H. Trivedi. (1966) *10. Ācārya Jinabhadra's Viseşāvasyakabhāşya, with Auto-commen
151tary, pt. I. Editor : Pt. Dalsukh Malvania. (1966) 11. Akalarka's Criticism of Dharmakirti's Philosophy : A study
30/by Dr. Nagin J. Shah. (1966) Jinamanikyagani's Ratnakarāvatārikadyaślokaśatarthi, Editor : 8/
Pt. Bechardas J, Doshi. (1967) •13. Acārya Malayagiri's Sabdanuśāsana. Editor : Pt. Bechardas 30/
J. Doshi (1967) *14. Ācārya Jinabhadra's Višeşāvaśyakabhāşya, with Auto-commen- 201 -
tary. Pt. II. Editor Pt. Dalsukh Malvania. (1968) 15. Catalogue of Sanskrit and Prakrit Manuscripts : Munirāja Shri 30/
Punyavijayaji's Collection. Pt. III. Compiler : Munirāja Shri Punyavijayaji. Editor : Pt. A.P. Shah. (1968)
• out of print

Page #71

16. Ratnaprabhasuri's Ratnākarāvatārikā, pt. II. Editor: Pt. Dalsukh Malvania, (1968)
17. Kalpalataviveka (by an anonymous writer). Editor: Dr. Murari Lal Nagar and Pt. Harishankar Shastry. (1968)
18. Ac. Hemacandra's Nighantuśesa, with a commentary of Srivallabhagani. Editor: Muniraja Shri Punyavijayji. (1968) 19. The Yogabindu of Acarya Haribhadrasuri with an English Translation, Notes and Introduction by Dr. K.K. Dixit. (1968) 20. Catalogue of Sanskrit and Prakrit Manuscripts: Shri Ac. Devasuri's Collection and Ac. Kṣantisuri's Collection : Part IV. Compiler Muniraja Shri Punyavijayji, Editor: Pt. A.P.
Shab. (1968)
21. Acarya Jinabhadra's Viseṣāvaśyakabhāṣya, with Commentary, pt. III, Editor: Pt. Dalsukh Malvania and Pt. Bechardas Doshi (1968)
22. The Sastravartasamuccaya of Acarya Haribhadrasuri with Hindi Translation, Notes and Introduction by Dr. K.K. Dixit. (1969) 23. Pallipala Dhanapala's Tilakmañjarisära, Editor: Prof. N. M. Kansara. (1969)
24. Ratnaprabhasuri's Ratnakarāvatārikā pt. III, Editor: Pt.
Dalsukh Malvania, (1969)
25. Ac. Haribhadra's Neminahacariu Pt. 1: Editors: M. C. Modi and Dr. H. C. Bhayani. (1970)
26.
A Critical Study of Mahapuraṇa of Puspadanta, (A Critical Study of the Deśya and Rare words from Puspadanta's Mahāpurana and His other Apabhramśa works). By Dr. Smt, Ratna Shriyan. (1970)
"
27.
Haribhadra's Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya with English translation, Notes, Introduction by Dr. K. K. Dixit. (1970) 28. Dictionary of Prakrit Proper Names, Part I by Dr.
M. L. Mehta and Dr. K. R. Chandra, (1970)
29. Pramāṇavārtikabhāṣya Kārikārdhapādasuci. Compiled by Pt. Rupendrakumar. (1970)
30. Prakrit Jaina Katha Sahitya by Dr. J.C. Jaina, (1971) 31. Jaina Ontology, By Dr. K. K. Dixit (1971)
2
34.
35.
Editors: Muni Shri Mitranandavijayaji and Dr. Nagin J. Shah. (1972) Cakradhara's Nyayamañjarigranthibhanga Editor Dr. Nagin J. Shah. (1972)
C:

10/

32/
30/
10/
40/
21/
33.
40/
32. The Philosophy of Sri Svaminārāyaṇa by Dr. J. A. Yajnik. (1972) 30/Ac. Haribhadra's Neminahacariu Pt. II: Editors: Shri M. C. Modi and Dr. H. C. Bhayani. Up. Harṣavardhana's Adhyatmabindu
20/
12/
8/
40/
30/
81
32/
8/
10/
30/
6/
36/

Page #72

6)
6. Catalogue of Mss. Jesalmer collection : Compiler : Muniraja 40/
Shri Punyavijayaji. (1972) 37. Dictionary of Prakrit Proper Names Pt. II, by Dr. M. L.
35/Mehta and Dr. K. R. Chandra. (1972) 38. Karma and Rebirth by Dr. T. G. Kalghatagi. (1972) 39. Jinabhadrasūri's Madanarekbā Ākhyāyikā : Editor Pt.
25/Bechardasji Doshi. (1973) 41. Jaina Philosophical Tracts : Editor Dr. Nagin J, Shah (1974) 16/42. Sanatukumaracariya Editors : Prof. H. C. Bhayani
and Prof. M. C. Modi. (1974) 43. The Jaina Concept of Omniscience by Dr. Ram Jee Singh (1974) 30/44. Pt, Sukbalalji's Commentary on the Tattvärthasūtra, Translated 32/
into English by Dr. K. K. Dixit. 45. Isibhāsiyäim. Ed. by Dr. Walther Schubring. (1974) 46. Haimapāmamalaśiloñcha, by Mabopadhyaya Vinayasagara. (1974) 16/47. A Modern Understanding of Advaita Vedānta by Dr. Kalidas 6
Bhattacharya pp. 4+68, (1975) 49. Atonements in the Ancient Ritual of the Jaina Monks by Dr. 30/
Colette Caillat, pp. 8+210. (1975) 50. The Upabộm hana and the Rgveda Interpretation by Prof.
T. G. Maiokar, pp. 460, 4+60. (1975)
161
In Press
1. Prācioa Gurjara Kavya Sancaya, edited by Dr. H.C. Bhayani
and Agarchand Nahata, pp. 164.155. 2. Nyayamanjari (I Ābnika) with Gujarati translation, edited and
translated by Dr. Nagin J. Sbab, pp. 4+144. 3. Jayavantsūri's Rşidattārāsa (Old Gujarati Kavya) Edited by
Dr. Nipuna Dalal. 4. Jineśvarasūri's Gābārayaņakosa, Edited by Pt. A.M. Bhojak
and Dr. Nagin J. Shah. 5. Amrtacandra's Laghutattvaspbota (Sanskrit) Jaina Philosophical
Kāvya, Edited by Dr. P. S. Jaini. 6. Jayavantasūri's Śrngāramañjarı (Old Gujarati Kāvya) Edited
by Dr. Kanubhai Sheib. 7. Proceedings of Prākṣta Seminar, March 1973, Ahmedabad. 8. Proceedings of Seminar on Jaina Art and Architecture,
Ahmedabad. 9. More Documents of Jaina Paintings and Gujarati Paintings of
sixteenth and later centuries, by Dr. U. P. Shah.

Page #73

4
10. Indrahamsa's Bhuvaṇabhaṇukevalicariya, Edited by Panyasa Ramanikavijayaji.
11. Sadbarana's Vilasavaikaba (Apabhramśa Kavya), Edited by Dr. R. M. Shah.
12. Vasudevahindi (Majjhima Khanda) edited by Dr. H.C. Bhayani and Dr. R. M. Shah.
13. Vasudevahindi-A study and English translation by Dr. J.C. Jain.
14. Sasadhara's Nyayasidhdäntadipa edited by Dr. B. K. Mati Lal. 15. Fundamentals of Ancient Indian Music and Dance by
S. C. Banerjee.

Page #74
_