Upabrmhana and Rgveda Interpretation

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

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