Madhuvidya

Author(s): S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 149

M. A. MEHENDALE
when he has dealt with this line again. "The answer seems to be," observes Fr. E, "that the SK misunderstands the text in both cases as involving the sense: 'We, Rbhus, have fashioned this hymn like a chariot'". He continues. "But if it has to be some kind of rsi-kavis who lay claim to the authorship of the hymns in question, it could not naturally be supposed to be the Rbhus, but the Bhrgus, who are repeatedly mentioned in the role of authors of divine praises..." That the SK has misunderstood the text the way Fr.E imagines is out of question. I cannot believe that the SK overlooked the presence of the particle of comparison nd which would have clearly shown to him that rbhavaḥ, if that would have occurred in the original text, was an upamana.
104
As a matter of fact Fr.E himself has drawn our attention to the fact that the SK has retained rbhavah in stanza 12 of this very hymn (10.39) á tona yatam mánaso javiyasa rátham yam vam rbhávaš cakrúr aśvina. The SK therefore is quite clear in his mind about the activities of the Rbhus and the Bhrgus and it is fair to assume that he has made no confusion. It is therefore better to attempt an interpretation of the text as it is without changing it for our convenience. I feel that in the line etám vam stómam aśvināv akarmatakṣāma bhigavo nd ratham the word ratham is not to be understood literally but as standing for a hymn.
Similar considerations apply to RV 4.16.20 evéd indrāya vṛṣabhāya vṛsne brahmakarma bhigavo na ratham where also Fr. E accuses the SK for 'replacing rbhávaḥ with bhrgavah for similar reasons. To me here also the word ratham stands for a hymn.
Fr. E unfortunately, does not end his story about the Bhrgus and the Ṛbhus here and I am therefore required to dwell a little longer on these lines. According to Fr. E the change proposed by him in the two verses above to read rbhdvaḥ in the place of bhigavaḥ is confirmed by the fact that at least in one place the SK did exactly the opposite, i. e. he replaced bhigavaḥ of the original by his rbhavaḥ - and this, in the words of Fr. E!" to compensate the Rbhus by making them take the place of the Bhrgus in a similar situation." The stanza in question RV 10.80.7 opens with the words agnaye brahma rbhavas tatakṣaḥ. But since it is the Bhṛgus, and not the Rbhus, who are known to have a special connection with Agni, Fr. E is quite confident that in the original text of the rikavi there must have occurred the word bhigavah which the SK altered to rbhavaḥ. Why? You have the Father's answer: In making this change "the SK sees a chance of attributing to the Rbhus exactly what he had taken away from
23 Proc. Tr. 22nd AIOC II 21-22. 24 By mistake printed as Bhrgus.
Madhu Vidya/124