Upabrmhana and Rgveda Interpretation

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

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