Upabrmhana and Rgveda Interpretation

Author(s): T G Manikar
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

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'.