Upabrmhana and Rgveda Interpretation

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

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